View Full Version : Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Wingnut
June 26th 10, 02:27 AM
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:07:17 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> What is a unmanned aerial vehicle, that thing they call a drone? You
> gotta be great with a sim to fly that!
Oh, great. The Starmaker. And inviting Iraq-war controversy.
I have a feeling this thread just went from bad to much, much worse.
Wingnut
June 26th 10, 02:31 AM
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:02:30 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Wingnut writes:
>
>> Do you honestly think someone with a *commercial* license won't
>> typically be well past that "not experienced enough to be humble"
>> stage?
>
> Often, but not always.
"Often" is good enough for me.
>> In your ever-so-humble opinion perhaps.
>
> Without instruction, a non-pilot--or a pilot without experience in
> type--would be in very hot water.
Nobody said otherwise.
>> Er, horizon? Altimeter?
>
> That's probably what he'd be asking himself. The AI had pretty colors
> that are easy to spot, but the rest is not so obvious. He might spot the
> standby AI and altimeter, but those aren't the instruments to watch.
The last time I checked, the altimeter is quite important when flying
(and doubly so when landing!). The horizon is generally easily
recognized, typically to a first approximation a circle that's half blue
and half some other color. Important to know the plane's orientation,
both pitch and roll (while the compass gives you yaw, the third
rotational degree of freedom).
Mxsmanic
June 26th 10, 03:21 AM
Wingnut writes:
> "Often" is good enough for me.
It has not been good enough to prevent crashes.
> The last time I checked, the altimeter is quite important when flying
> (and doubly so when landing!).
It is called a _standby_ altimeter for a reason, although it presumably works
even when other instruments are working.
> Important to know the plane's orientation,
> both pitch and roll (while the compass gives you yaw, the third
> rotational degree of freedom).
It's also important to know the current stall angle, the angle of attack, the
flight path vector, the airspeed and altitude trends, the V-speeds, the upper
and lower airspeed limits, the current track, the current route, the current
vertical profile, the current heading, the expected top of descent, and about
a zillion other things that a private pilot isn't likely to see in a tiny
Cessna.
On Jun 25, 7:47*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Myers writes:
> > Frankly - no, you don't.
>
> Since you don't know the extent of my knowledge, you are not in a position to
> assess it. So why not talk about aviation instead?
YES WE DO KNOW THE EXTENT OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO ASSESS IT
FACT: YOU NEVER FLEW A REAL PLANE
FACT:: YOU HAVE NO REAL WORLD KNOWLEDGE.
The fact is you outright lie when you say you fly. YOU DON'T FLY!!!!
HELLOOOO. YOU SIMULATE FLYING.
FACT: SIMULATION IS THE EXTENT OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE
george
June 26th 10, 03:46 AM
On Jun 26, 2:21*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> It's also important to know the current stall angle, the angle of attack, the
> flight path vector, the airspeed and altitude trends, the V-speeds, the upper
> and lower airspeed limits, the current track, the current route, the current
> vertical profile, the current heading, the expected top of descent, and about
> a zillion other things that a private pilot isn't likely to see in a tiny
> Cessna.
Wrong again.
No matter what the aircraft is there are basics.
You demonstrate that you have terms which do not equate to what we
actually do.
Sure your word salad looks impressive but that's all it is just word
salad.
But if you had actually learnt to fly in a real aeroplane (even a
Cessna) you would know that
JohnT[_3_]
June 26th 10, 08:25 AM
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Myers writes:
>
>> Frankly - no, you don't.
>
> Since you don't know the extent of my knowledge, you are not in a position
> to
> assess it. So why not talk about aviation instead?
I think that quite a few of the people who have read your postings over the
past few years have a good idea of the extent of your knowledge. My own view
is that you know a little about a lot of subjects, which is dangerous. But,
clearly, you have no in-depth knowledge of anything and in your own view you
have never ever been wrong.
--
JohnT
JohnT[_3_]
June 26th 10, 08:27 AM
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's also important to know the current stall angle, the angle of attack,
> the
> flight path vector, the airspeed and altitude trends, the V-speeds, the
> upper
> and lower airspeed limits, the current track, the current route, the
> current
> vertical profile, the current heading, the expected top of descent, and
> about
> a zillion other things that a private pilot isn't likely to see in a tiny
> Cessna.
But you know them all because you play a computer game?
--
JohnT
Bob Myers
June 26th 10, 09:39 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bob Myers writes:
>
>> But the simulator experience you're talking about is absolutely
>> meaningless without real-world flight experience.
>
> I don't share that opinion, nor is it widely held.
>
> In fact, it's possible to pursue simulation as an end in itself. It
> does have certain advantages that real flight does not.
>
>> For that matter, the "simulator" in your case really isn't one.
>> It's a computer game, something which is VERY far removed from
>> what the airlines call a simulator.
>
> Clearly, it's been a long time since you last used a desktop
> simulator.
Wrong again. And to think that you were just complaining
that *I* had no idea what *you* knew. Mr, Pot, meet
Mr. Kettle.
MSFS is a computer game. It is by no stretch of the imagination
a "flight simulator" in the sense of something that would actually
be useful for flight instruction, except possibly re some very
basic procedures training.
> The U.S. military disagrees with you, and has for the past decade
> (that is, through several versions of MSFS). So do many pilots,
> flight schools, and instructors.
No, they don't disagree with me at all. I know what they're using that game
for
- do you? And just how many pilot certificates have been awarded based
on MSFS hours, do you think?
Bob M.
Bob Myers
June 26th 10, 09:40 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bob Myers writes:
>
>> No. The little airplane you see on the screen may stall, but
>> you have absolutely no insight at all into what a stall *feels*
>> like.
>
> I have some insight into it, but what it feels like is not terribly
> important.
And that, more than anything else you have said, sums up
quite neatly why you have no idea what you're talking about
here.
Bob M.
William Black[_1_]
June 26th 10, 12:08 PM
On 26/06/10 01:47, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Hatunen writes:
>> Do you suppose your typical lieutenant taking simulator training
>> will be allowed to become a tank commander without actually ever
>> having been in a tank?
>
> It's certainly conceivable, but I don't know if it is actually done.
Do you know, I do believe the idiot thinks he's right.
Which is possibly the scariest thing I have thought in a very long time...
--
William Black
These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.
Mxsmanic
June 26th 10, 02:35 PM
george writes:
> No matter what the aircraft is there are basics.
It takes a lot more than basics to fly a 747. In a Cessna 152, there isn't
much else beyond the basics, but in a large commercial airliner, almost
everything is beyond the basics.
A pilot's license does not confer instant knowledge of all systems and all
details of all aircraft. A good pilot knows this.
> You demonstrate that you have terms which do not equate to what we
> actually do. Sure your word salad looks impressive but that's all it
> is just word salad.
Not to a qualified pilot of the aircraft in question. In fact, almost
everything I named is on one or two displays in a large jet, and of course a
pilot of such is expected to know what they are and where they are.
Mxsmanic
June 26th 10, 02:36 PM
JohnT writes:
> But you know them all because you play a computer game?
I know a lot of them from flight simulation. And a Cessna 152 pilot who has
flown only that aircraft and never does simulation or study of any other
aircraft will not know about them.
Mxsmanic
June 26th 10, 02:36 PM
Bob Myers writes:
> And that, more than anything else you have said, sums up
> quite neatly why you have no idea what you're talking about
> here.
Only for people who love sensations and mistakenly believe that sensation is
all of flying.
Mxsmanic
June 26th 10, 02:39 PM
Bob Myers writes:
> MSFS is a computer game.
It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators
is very small. The market for games is very large.
> It is by no stretch of the imagination
> a "flight simulator" in the sense of something that would actually
> be useful for flight instruction, except possibly re some very
> basic procedures training.
As I've said, it is widely used as a learning and training aid.
> No, they don't disagree with me at all. I know what they're using that game
> for do you?
Yes.
> And just how many pilot certificates have been awarded based
> on MSFS hours, do you think?
None. In every jurisdiction I know of, you have to have hours in a real
aircraft to get a pilot certificate, at least currently. That may change in
the future, but even then the requirement will be for full-motion simulators,
not desktop simulators.
Mxsmanic
June 26th 10, 02:41 PM
JohnT writes:
> I think that quite a few of the people who have read your postings over the
> past few years have a good idea of the extent of your knowledge.
No more than I do of theirs. I can recognize many mistakes when I see them,
but that doesn't necessarily indicate the extent of a person's knowledge. In
some cases, you can tell; in other cases, you cannot.
Most people I interact with here are only interested in talking about me,
which makes it difficult to assess their knowledge unless they get something
clearly wrong. They do make some impressive claims, but claims in cyberspace
are nothing but background noise.
> My own view is that you know a little about a lot of subjects, which
> is dangerous.
Some people flying know only a little about the subject, too, which is far
more dangerous.
On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bob Myers writes:
> > MSFS is a computer game.
>
> It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators
> is very small. The market for games is very large.
WRONG. Guess you can't even speak for Microsoft correctly.
http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/
READ THE URL. It says GAMES. What part of that do you not
understand??????????
Mxsmanic
June 26th 10, 06:02 PM
writes:
> READ THE URL. It says GAMES.
A game does not incur liability. A simulation does. Additionally, games have
broader appeal than simulators. However, MSFS has always been a simulation,
from its earliest days. That's one of the things that limited its market,
since gamers quickly lose interest in something that doesn't have prizes,
goals, action and adventure, etc.
FSX moved slightly towards games, with more eye candy and "missions" to please
the kiddies, but a total rewrite would have been required to truly make the
product a game. Microsoft, in its increasing lack of wisdom, therefore killed
development on the product and fired the development team.
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
June 26th 10, 07:01 PM
On Jun 26, 12:58*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 8:39*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Bob Myers writes:
> > > MSFS is a computer game.
>
> > It's a simulation, which is why Microsoft killed it. The market for simulators
> > is very small. The market for games is very large.
>
> WRONG. *Guess you can't even speak for Microsoft correctly.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/
>
> READ THE URL. *It says GAMES. *What part of that do you not
> understand??????????
Lord, you'll NEVER know how I absolutely HATE to chime in on this
thread again. 235 postings back and forth, everybody shouting at
everybody else with the same old tired song. Man, I mean you guys
might actually be going for a Usenet record here :-))))))))))))))))
Kidding aside, about MSFS; there's a right and a wrong to what's being
said about it. As someone who actually worked with Microsoft on the
program as a realism and fidelity advisor I can speak to the issues at
hand directly.
Respectfully submitted of course, and with deference to others
opinions that might vary, MSFS is neither as bad as some have said
here, nor is it as good as others have stated here. Actually, the
program is sort of in the middle of it all.
As the program exists out of the box, as far as real world aviation
training and usage goes, the sim has excellent use as an introductory
and sales tool for the training community. Later on, the program has
some limited uses as a cross country, procedures, and instrument
procedures tool if used PROPERLY and under the direct supervision of a
certificated flight or ground instructor.
I've always recommended that if the program is indeed present during
the student pre-solo period, that it be NOT used between the period of
first dual and solo due to the importance of actual aircraft visual
cues and actual control pressure vs response interfacing the student
with the exact aircraft being used for training. During this period,
the use of the sim can actually be detrimental and flatten the
learning curve.
As for reality, accuracy, and authenticity of the program to actual
aircraft, there are limitations as the program exists due to various
reasons, among them the need by Microsoft to keep the performance of
the program within certain parameters for a targeted end user sales
demographic. The depth of fidelity and depth of accuracy of ANY
aircraft flight model and systems simply isn't a requirement of the
program as designed and marketed.
NOW, all this having been said, I can tell you with certainty as I am
working on these programs as we speak, that there are after market
developers out here designing flight models for add on aircraft for
FSX that will define a paradigm shift in fidelity and accuracy in the
program. As we speak, I am working on a P51D for FSX that will be
using code outside the base sim engine and based on exact aircraft
performance data that will come extremely close to being good enough
to use as an additional tool in checking someone out in a P51D.
The accuracy and system fidelity is so deep on this add on that
systems AND the aircraft act dynamically in a standard atmosphere
reflecting all temps and pressures associated with flying in that
atmosphere.
Even this falls a bit short of actual realism as using pressure
altitude defines a performance limit not associated with density
altitude in a non standard atmosphere.
So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a
training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's
uses either.
Dudley Henriques
On Jun 26, 1:01*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a
> training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's
> uses either.
I have always agreed with you Dudley for what it's worth. When used
as a TOOL, it's an outstanding training aid as I have said time after
time for learning instrumentation values, IFR procedures and system
failures.
But it MUST be used in concurrence with a qualified instructor, not
like what Mx proposes it does. It doesn't simulate the actual feed
back of an airplane needed to be learned to safely fly a plane. It
doesn't replace the full motion simulator or a real plane. There
won't be a day that I can see one can take lessons on MSFS, walk out
to their favorite flight school and safely fly a real plane.
Realism, yes, MSFS looks real, key thing is looks.
Feels real, I can't say it will ever do that as long as you work on a
flat screen monitor using a function key or mouse to look around the
sides for peripheral vision. Mx is sadly mistaken to think that MSFS
is just like being in a cockpit of a real C172, citation and so on.
William Black[_1_]
June 26th 10, 08:30 PM
On 26/06/10 14:36, Mxsmanic wrote:
> JohnT writes:
>
>> But you know them all because you play a computer game?
>
> I know a lot of them from flight simulation. And a Cessna 152 pilot who has
> flown only that aircraft and never does simulation or study of any other
> aircraft will not know about them.
How can I put this...
If I was in an aircraft and the choice was between you and someone who
had actually flown a real aircraft... If you got too pushy you'd be out
the door son...
--
William Black
These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.
The Starmaker
June 26th 10, 09:07 PM
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Bob Myers wrote:
> >
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> Tell us: does the simulator simulate a stall?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > No. The little airplane you see on the screen may stall, but
> > you have absolutely no insight at all into what a stall *feels*
> > like.
> >
> > Bob M.
>
> ever seen a plane crash where every single person died except two people lived?
the two people were married.
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
June 26th 10, 10:05 PM
On Jun 26, 3:17*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 1:01*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a
> > training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's
> > uses either.
>
> I have always agreed with you Dudley for what it's worth. *When used
> as a TOOL, it's an outstanding training aid as I have said time after
> time for learning instrumentation values, *IFR procedures and system
> failures.
>
> But it MUST be used in concurrence with a qualified instructor, not
> like what Mx proposes it does. *It doesn't simulate the actual feed
> back of an airplane needed to be learned to safely fly a plane. *It
> doesn't replace the full motion simulator or a real plane. *There
> won't be a day that I can see one can take lessons on MSFS, walk out
> to their favorite flight school and safely fly a real plane.
>
> Realism, yes, MSFS looks real, key thing is looks.
>
> Feels real, I can't say it will ever do that as long as you work on a
> flat screen monitor using a function key or mouse to look around the
> sides for peripheral vision. *Mx is sadly mistaken to think that MSFS
> is just like being in a cockpit of a real C172, citation and so on.
I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with
the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY
capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training
purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that
basis alone.
DH
george
June 26th 10, 11:10 PM
On Jun 27, 1:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > No matter what the aircraft is there are basics.
>
> It takes a lot more than basics to fly a 747. *In a Cessna 152, there isn't
> much else beyond the basics, but in a large commercial airliner, almost
> everything is beyond the basics.
>
> A pilot's license does not confer instant knowledge of all systems and all
> details of all aircraft. A good pilot knows this.
That is why we have ratings.
You -do- understand what I mean by ratings?
The Starmaker
June 26th 10, 11:11 PM
wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 1:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > So my word would be not to over emphasize the value of MSFS as a
> > training tool, but to be careful not to under emphasize the program's
> > uses either.
>
> I have always agreed with you Dudley for what it's worth. When used
> as a TOOL, it's an outstanding training aid as I have said time after
> time for learning instrumentation values, IFR procedures and system
> failures.
>
> But it MUST be used in concurrence with a qualified instructor, not
> like what Mx proposes it does. It doesn't simulate the actual feed
> back of an airplane needed to be learned to safely fly a plane. It
> doesn't replace the full motion simulator or a real plane. There
> won't be a day that I can see one can take lessons on MSFS, walk out
> to their favorite flight school and safely fly a real plane.
You can fly a real plane, you just don't have to get into one...
george
June 26th 10, 11:15 PM
On Jun 27, 9:05*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with
> the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY
> capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training
> purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that
> basis alone.
> DH
Sadly with him its an all or nothing world.
I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link
trainer
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
June 26th 10, 11:43 PM
On Jun 26, 6:15*pm, george > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 9:05*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > I hesitate to say it as I REALLY don't want to get in the ring with
> > the Mx thing but I will say that if his comment is that MSFS in ANY
> > capacity can take the place of the actual aircraft for training
> > purposes, I would have to professionally disagree with him on that
> > basis alone.
> > DH
>
> Sadly with him its an all or nothing world.
> I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link
> trainer
Me too. The old ANT-18. I even ran the crab off the table once when
the instructor left the room to get a cup of coffee :-)) I've
forgotten much of the Morse code but those A's and N's will stick in
my craw forever :-)))
Dudley Henriques
Mxsmanic
June 26th 10, 11:57 PM
george writes:
> That is why we have ratings.
How so?
Hatunen
June 27th 10, 02:15 AM
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:43:14 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 6:15*pm, george > wrote:
>> I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link
>> trainer
>
>Me too. The old ANT-18. I even ran the crab off the table once when
>the instructor left the room to get a cup of coffee :-)) I've
>forgotten much of the Morse code but those A's and N's will stick in
>my craw forever :-)))
You wouldn't have that problem if you had just stayed on course.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
June 27th 10, 02:21 AM
On Jun 26, 9:15*pm, Hatunen > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:43:14 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 26, 6:15 pm, george > wrote:
> >> I came from an age where people learnt to fly on instruments in a Link
> >> trainer
>
> >Me too. The old ANT-18. I even ran the crab off the table once when
> >the instructor left the room to get a cup of coffee :-)) *I've
> >forgotten much of the Morse code but those A's and N's will stick in
> >my craw forever :-)))
>
> You wouldn't have that problem if you had just stayed on course.
>
> --
> * ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
> * ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
> * ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
I hate steady increasing tones :-)
Wingnut
June 28th 10, 10:39 AM
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 04:21:38 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Wingnut writes:
>> "Often" is good enough for me.
> It has not been good enough to prevent crashes.
Occasionally a company apparently insufficiently screens its employees to
keep out idiots. Nothing to do with what we were discussing.
>> Important to know the plane's orientation, both pitch and roll (while
>> the compass gives you yaw, the third rotational degree of freedom).
>
> It's also important to know the current stall angle, the angle of
> attack, the flight path vector, the airspeed and altitude trends, the
> V-speeds, the upper and lower airspeed limits, the current track, the
> current route, the current vertical profile, the current heading, the
> expected top of descent, and about a zillion other things that a private
> pilot isn't likely to see in a tiny Cessna.
And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?
Wingnut
June 28th 10, 10:40 AM
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:07:50 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> ever seen a plane crash where every single person died except two
>> people lived?
>
> the two people were married.
Oh, no.
It's happened.
Somebody's birthed a horrible mutation.
The self-feeding troll.
Usenet is now officially doomed.
Wingnut
June 28th 10, 11:13 AM
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:01:22 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Lord, you'll NEVER know how I absolutely HATE to chime in on this thread
> again. 235 postings back and forth, everybody shouting at everybody else
> with the same old tired song. Man, I mean you guys might actually be
> going for a Usenet record here :-))))))))))))))))
If so, we have a loooong way to go.
Here's one of the middling-length *ahem* "discussions" I've seen on
Usenet:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/browse_thread/
thread/ce27f65ea7256d97
"Messages 1 - 25 of 5277" should be your first hint of how far we still
have to go here. :-)
If you browse that thread, you'll see it all: flames of all kinds, from
horrible sex-related accusations to the usual assortment of epithets
("idiot", "retard", "nutcase", etc.) and swear words; star ratings on
Google Groups that show clear signs of heavy voting by multiple
participants on each side (e.g. 3-star ratings with 9 or 10 voters --
nobody actually votes three stars and hardly anyone votes anything but
one or five); the same points being reiterated hundreds of times.
It's a vi/emacs editor war of course, via topic drift about thirty posts
in. Abortion and gun control can't hold a candle to which editor is best
when measured by how much passionate debate they can generate in a single
usenet thread. The twist, if you'll pardon the pun, is that there's a
third side in this editor war advocating Windows GUI editors over both
traditional Unix editors, for some reason unfathomable to the computer
geek mind.
Me? I use vi. And I mostly stay out of editor war threads, though
sometimes I lurk in them. This one bored me by about the 300th post, but
eventually I got mildly interested again when I kept seeing it bumped to
the top of my newsreader even after much of a whole year had passed.
It actually has MORE than the listed 5277 posts: by mutual agreement the
participants stopped cluttering up cljp with this crap and moved the
discussion over to alt.offtopic. Google's archive for that group is
*dominated* by the results, another several thousand posts spread among a
couple of dozen threads mostly titled "Lies, damn lies and statistics".
Subsequently, it seems to have petered out gradually, terminating this
January.
Yes, that makes it a single editor war that lasted almost two and a half
full years and consists of around 8000 individual posts, some of them
quite long.
(For those that are curious, the last words were "I wouldn't know. I've
never tried it. Why the wild tangent? Picking up some more bad habits
from Bent?" posted by someone calling himself "Handkea fumosa", which
Google tells me is some kind of puffball fungus that grows in California.
It was a comeback in response to "How does it feel sticking your head
into the sand?" posted by a vi advocate that was there from the very
start in August 2007. But the insult exchange that ended the debate
apparently arose from discussion not of vi but of emacs.)
So to beat that, we'd have to debate the relative merits of Microsoft
Flight Simulator vs. *real* aeronautical training until Mayan doomsday
(literally) and destroy several whole newsgroups.
And I've seen *worse*, elsewhere on Usenet. More than once. The most
recent actually-worse one was in alt.conspiracy and involved 9/11
"truthers" vs. their debunkers. It exceeded 10,000 posts. Rumors exist of
flamewars exceeding 20,000 posts, however.
Mxsmanic
June 28th 10, 11:21 AM
Wingnut writes:
> And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
> morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?
Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.
The only difference between a private pilot and a commercial pilot is that the
commercial pilot can fly for hire. Apparently there is some widespread
misconception that all commercial pilots are flying airliners, but that is not
at all the case.
Wingnut
June 28th 10, 12:44 PM
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:21:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Wingnut writes:
>
>> And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
>> subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
>> by the way?
>
> Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.
Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
than *just* Cessnas.
Mxsmanic
June 28th 10, 01:03 PM
Wingnut writes:
> Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
> than *just* Cessnas.
That can be said of private pilots as well.
a[_3_]
June 28th 10, 01:23 PM
On Jun 28, 7:44*am, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:21:10 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Wingnut writes:
>
> >> And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
> >> subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
> >> by the way?
>
> > Commercial pilots fly Cessnas all the time, including the small ones.
>
> Nobody said they don't; just that their experience tends to be broader
> than *just* Cessnas.
Well, a commercial certificate means the holder has demonstrated a
different level of piloting proficiency, passed a different written
and is required to hold a different physical certificate. Not that
private pilots can't be as proficient, but they are not required to
be. Most would agree the instrument rating is more difficult to get
than the commercial license, so long as the pilot can pass the
physical. I needed a waiver for the physical (vision).
My airplane is a business (ie point to point travel) tool, I simply
don't need more than a private pilot certificate since neither the
ariplane nor I are for hire.
Cessna strawmen and annoying pilots are MX's strong points. It's been
pretty clear for a long time he doesn't have much of a real life,
spends lots of time in sim and offering his 'wisdom' here.
On Jun 28, 5:21*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>. Apparently there is some widespread
> misconception that all commercial pilots are flying airliners, but that is not
> at all the case.
NO, IT's YOUR MISCONCEPTION.
The real world knows the difference between commercial pilot and ATP.
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
June 28th 10, 04:13 PM
On Jun 28, 5:39*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>
> And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the subject
> morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot, by the way?
Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna
strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))
First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned. Secondly, there
are literally thousands of pilots certificated as commercial pilots in
the United States who have never flown anything more complicated than
a light complex.
I personally know many of these pilots myself. One is a commercial ag
operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years and has never flown
anything heavier than a 182 Cessna. He makes a good living flying a
Pawnee. I know another who runs a banner towing business and flies
Citabrias. MANY I know are CFI's in light aircraft holding commercial
ratings.
You can add to this literally thousands of pilots in the United States
who own light aircraft, many not even complex aircraft, who have
obtained commercials simply for the added education involved.
The lady said she had a commercial and said her experience was limited
to light aircraft. I find absolutely nothing inconsistent with her
comment whatsoever. The inference by ANYONE that her having a
commercial rating indicates she has had experience in heavier aircraft
than those she mentioned is totally flawed in my opinion.
Dudley Henriques
Wingnut
June 29th 10, 05:34 AM
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> On Jun 28, 5:39Â*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>
>
>> And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
>> subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
>> by the way?
>
> Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))
>
> First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
> interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
> limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned.
> does not say anything like that; it only
says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.
Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
jumbo jet. Assuming anything beyond that, either negative or positive,
seems unwarranted. This "televised news interview" has not been entered
into evidence, unlike the content of the original post
>, so you are assuming facts not in evidence
as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.
> Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
> commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
> more complicated than a light complex.
This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly. In the meantime, the important matter
here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
has yet been made by you.
> I personally know many of these pilots myself.
Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
Small, uncontrolled, biased samples are the bane of every statistician.
> One is a commercial ag operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years
> and has never flown anything heavier than a 182 Cessna.
Aside from the time he flew an FA-18 straight up into the nozzle of an
alien superweapon, of course.
Sorry, fictional characters make particularly poor evidence. :-)
> totally flawed in my opinion. Dudley Henriques
Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
June 29th 10, 06:26 AM
On Jun 29, 12:34*am, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 5:39*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>
> >> And there goes the Cessna strawman again. When, exactly, did the
> >> subject morph from being a commercial pilot to being a private pilot,
> >> by the way?
>
> > Don't know why all the fuss about "Cessna strawmen". :-)))))))))))))))))
>
> > First of all, the lady in question herself during a televised news
> > interview said quite plainly that her "commercial experience" was
> > limited to light aircraft and Cessna was mentioned.
>
> > does not say anything like that; it only
> says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
> that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
> everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.
>
> Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
> able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
> jumbo jet. Assuming anything beyond that, either negative or positive,
> seems unwarranted. This "televised news interview" has not been entered
> into evidence, unlike the content of the original post
> >, so you are assuming facts not in evidence
> as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
> Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.
>
> > Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
> > commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
> > more complicated than a light complex.
>
> This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
> could spell "certified" correctly. In the meantime, the important matter
> here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
> has yet been made by you.
>
> > I personally know many of these pilots myself.
>
> Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
> Small, uncontrolled, biased samples are the bane of every statistician.
>
> > One is a commercial ag operator who has been dusting crops for 30 years
> > and has never flown anything heavier than a 182 Cessna.
>
> Aside from the time he flew an FA-18 straight up into the nozzle of an
> alien superweapon, of course.
>
> Sorry, fictional characters make particularly poor evidence. :-)
>
> > totally flawed in my opinion. Dudley Henriques
>
> Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
> fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
> who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
> should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.
I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
here. :-))))))))
Dudley Henriques
Mxsmanic
June 29th 10, 08:27 AM
Wingnut writes:
> > does not say anything like that; it only
> says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
> that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
> everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.
Patti DeLuna herself indicated that she only had about 300 hours of
experience, and has only flown small Cessna aircraft (specifically, a Cessna
210).
> Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
> able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
> jumbo jet.
She did not "assume the copilot's role," an assertion that many first officers
might resent. She merely sat in the copilot's seat and followed the pilot's
instructions.
> ... as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
Nobody is in partnership with me.
> Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.
Looking things up, on the other hand, is pretty effective.
> This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
> could spell "certified" correctly.
"Certificate" is a real word. It is slightly different in meaning from
"certify." To certify means to attest to something. To certificate means to
issue a certification. However, the FAA and others use certificate mainly
because it contains more syllables and therefore sounds more important.
> In the meantime, the important matter
> here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
> has yet been made by you.
The majority of commercial pilots fly little planes. Remember that airline
pilots generally hold airline transport pilot certifications, which are not
the same as commercial licenses.
> Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
But research goes a long way, and so does an understanding of how the FAA
certifies pilots.
> Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
> fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
> who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
> should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.
Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people?
Mxsmanic
June 29th 10, 08:28 AM
Stephen! writes:
> Hmmm... In over 850 landings, I honestly can't remember ever referring
> to the altimeter while landing. On approach in the soup? Of course...
> but never during a visual approach. That's what the windows are for...
I check the radio altimeter occasionally during instrument landings, and more
often if the weather is IMC.
Wingnut
June 29th 10, 10:59 AM
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:27:33 +0200, Mxsmanic spent about fifty paragraphs
to call me a liar over and over again without actually engaging in
productive debate. I therefore didn't bother to quote any of it, except
for his parting shot, which I shall address momentarily.
Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
relentless and unpleasant criticisms; all I did was say this:
> Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
> would have become quite relevant indeed.
Nothing any SANE person would respond to with the hostility and sheer
TENACITY exhibited by Mxsmanic, in particular.
I further observe that Mxsmanic seems to have a large number of
detractors, all sharing the same general opinion: Mxsmanic is a self-
styled know-it-all that actually knows nothing. Presumably, putting
others down while making inflated claims about his own expertise is his
primary means of ego tripping. Sad, if true.
> Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people?
A very good question. Why not, Mxsmanic? In the last two weeks you have
spent post after post, dozens of them in all, being subtly hostile and
insulting towards me without apparent provocation. I made a simple
statement that should have been uncontroversial and you attacked it. I
responded in my own defense and you attacked that, and so on. Then your
"legions of admiring fans" showed up to flame you for your silliness, and
even then I remained the primary focus of your attention. You have
replied to a handful of the others' posts but to nearly every single one
of mine. Clearly you have a problem of some sort with me. I doubt it's
the simple fact that I disagree with you about something. Perhaps it's
that I dare to CONTINUE to disagree with you even after you've made it
clear that we disagree, instead of instantly confessing to having been
stupid and swearing to always believe whatever you say in the future?
Actually, what would genuinely be stupid of me would be to give in to
that sort of intellectual bullying and start believing blindly in the
first thing anyone told me to believe "or else".
In fact, your behaviorally-implied "start agreeing with me or I'll flame
you and flame you and flame without end" amounts to an illegitimate,
logically-void argument from force.
The only problem is, it seems we have you outnumbered. You have what, one
ally here? And at least half a dozen enemies, including one new one --
me. Probably one more enemy than you could afford to make. You messed up
big time deciding to pick a fight with me on Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:51:12
+0200. That timestamp shall someday be indelibly burned in your memory,
when all is said and done; you will rue that day, hour, minute, and
second perhaps for the rest of your life.
Well, unless I decide to have mercy on your poor, misguided, silly little
soul.
Of course, I can't vouch for your half a dozen OTHER enemies, who you
probably ****ed off in much the same way as you got my back up, by
popping up out of nowhere one day to keep not merely disagreeing with
some particular random, innocuous statement they'd made but including
repeated suggestions of stupidity, incompetence, or dishonesty on their
parts, conveyed with a condescending tone, while not actually knowing
what you're talking about.
Perhaps you should ask them for forgiveness. Oh, and stop verbally
attacking me or anybody else.
a[_3_]
June 29th 10, 02:58 PM
On Jun 29, 3:27*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Wingnut writes:
> > > does not say anything like that; it only
> > says she has a commercial pilot's license, with no further detail. Since
> > that is the post that we are debating here, as far as I am concerned
> > everyone bringing up Cessnas is pulling them directly out of their ass.
>
> Patti DeLuna herself indicated that she only had about 300 hours of
> experience, and has only flown small Cessna aircraft (specifically, a Cessna
> 210).
>
> > Our givens are solely that she has a commercial pilot's license and was
> > able to successfully assume the copilot's role during the landing of a
> > jumbo jet.
>
> She did not "assume the copilot's role," an assertion that many first officers
> might resent. She merely sat in the copilot's seat and followed the pilot's
> instructions.
>
> > ... as part of your efforts, in partnership with Mxsmanic, to denigrate me.
>
> Nobody is in partnership with me.
>
> > Assuming facts not in evidence is, of course, an illicit debating move.
>
> Looking things up, on the other hand, is pretty effective.
>
> > This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
> > could spell "certified" correctly.
>
> "Certificate" is a real word. It is slightly different in meaning from
> "certify." To certify means to attest to something. To certificate means to
> issue a certification. However, the FAA and others use certificate mainly
> because it contains more syllables and therefore sounds more important.
>
> > In the meantime, the important matter
> > here is not the absolute number but the percentage, about which no claim
> > has yet been made by you.
>
> The majority of commercial pilots fly little planes. Remember that airline
> pilots generally hold airline transport pilot certifications, which are not
> the same as commercial licenses.
>
> > Personal anecdotes are a notoriously poor substitute for actual evidence.
>
> But research goes a long way, and so does an understanding of how the FAA
> certifies pilots.
>
> > Yes, your opinion of me is unfortunately quite clear to all, as is the
> > fact that you're the type of person to air such opinions, about people
> > who have done nothing offensive to you to provoke you, in public. You
> > should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.
>
> Why not discuss the topic, instead of other people?
As a matter of minor interest, there's an interesting logic trap in
play here. I think it is safe to say all holders of the airline
transport rating also hold commercial certificates at least in the US.
Mxsmanic
June 29th 10, 03:31 PM
a writes:
> As a matter of minor interest, there's an interesting logic trap in
> play here. I think it is safe to say all holders of the airline
> transport rating also hold commercial certificates at least in the US.
Since the commercial certificate is subsumed in the ATP, your assertion is
universally true.
The FAA issues several types of certificates, and each type main include
multiple ratings. The pilot certificate types are as follows:
Student
Sport
Recreational
Private
Commercial
Airline Transport Pilot
(There are many other non-pilot certificates, such as mechanic and
dispatcher.)
For each certificate type, you can hold several ratings. Examples of ratings
include:
ASEL - Land airplane single-engine
AMEL - Land airplane multi-engine
INSTA - Instrument airplane
GL - Glider
HEL - Rotorcraft helicopter
You can be a student pilot for gliders, for example, while being a commercial
pilot for multi-engine airplanes.
Some pilot certificates implicitly include the privileges of other
certificates. For example, an ATP includes commercial and private privileges,
and also includes an instrument rating (the only pilot certificate for which a
separate instrument rating is not necessary).
I don't know why the FAA has made it so complicated, but it has.
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
June 29th 10, 04:25 PM
On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>
> Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
> from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
> relentless and unpleasant criticisms.
Dudley Henriques wrote;
>I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
>No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
>here. :-))))))))
Dudley Henriques
Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled
to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and
unpleasant criticisms".
If you mean to imply that I am in disagreement with your position or
your argument, you would be correct. I do believe however that I have
gone out of my way to accompany my dissent with a tempered
approach..........sort of as I'm continuing to do now :-))))))))))
Dudley Henriques
Franklin[_25_]
June 29th 10, 05:10 PM
Ari Silverstein wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 6:40*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:11:10 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> All this is just a fancy way of saying that prior experience in a
>>>> Cessna 150 might not matter in a 767 being landed by a newbie
>>>> following detailed instruction.
>>>
>>> Like Atta? Tell Dekker and Hilliard that.
>>>
>>> lol
>>> --
>>> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
>>> Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>>
>> I fail to see your point.
>
> Brush up on your 9/11 history.
>
>> Ata and his fellow terrorists trained
>> specifically in full motion simulators designed to duplicate the exact
>> type of aircraft they took over and flew. There were no landings
>> involved in their actions.
>
> Tell Dekker and Hilliard that. Then wait for the laugh.
Hopsicker keeps posting observations about Huffman. He has deja vu with
Mena.
http://www.madcowprod.com/
On Jun 29, 2:28*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stephen! writes:
> > Hmmm... *In over 850 landings, I honestly can't remember ever referring
> > to the altimeter while landing. *On approach in the soup? *Of course... *
> > but never during a visual approach. *That's what the windows are for....
>
> I check the radio altimeter occasionally during instrument landings, and more
> often if the weather is IMC.
Lets be REAL CLEAR about what you do.
You are using MSFS, which is not comparable to what Stephen does.
YOU ARE NOT IN IMC, you are simulating IMC in front of a desktop
computer, which DOES NOT compare to what Stephen does.
Hatunen
June 29th 10, 10:30 PM
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:34:36 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> wrote:\
>On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
>> commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
>> more complicated than a light complex.
>This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
>could spell "certified" correctly.
From dictionary.com:
certificate
Main Entry: cer·tif·i·cate
Pronunciation: \-?ti-f?-?ka-t\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cer·tif·i·cat·ed; cer·tif·i·cat·ing
Date: 1818: to testify to or authorize by a certificate;
especially : certify
It's a good idea to look things up before assuming they're wrong
and especially before claiming they're wrong in public.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
On Jun 26, 8:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> It takes a lot more than basics to fly a 747. *In a Cessna 152, there isn't
> much else beyond the basics, but in a large commercial airliner, almost
> everything is beyond the basics.
George is right and YOU are WRONG. WRONG AND SO WRONG.
YOU really are CLUELESS about flying an airplane.
Tell this to Sully AND CREW who's glider rating got him to FLY and
LAND a large commercial airliner into the Hudson......
If my memory serves me correct the skies had a very loaded down glider
in the flavor of a 747 going through volcanic ash before they got
their engines restarted. Tell me, what kept that plane flying besides
the basic rules of flight????? LET ME GUESS, YOU WON'T answer.
Mxsmanic
June 30th 10, 03:48 PM
writes:
> George is right and YOU are WRONG. WRONG AND SO WRONG.
How many hours do you have flying 747s again?
> Tell this to Sully AND CREW who's glider rating got him to FLY and
> LAND a large commercial airliner into the Hudson......
Sullenberger and Skiles ditched the aircraft smoothly because they were
experienced professionals who followed the procedures and kept cool during the
emergency (I bet Sully never types in uppercase). Sullenberger's glider rating
had little to do with it, any more than his experience flying F-4s. He
succeeded mainly due to a very high level of overall competence,
professionalism, and calm under fire. There was no magic single skill that
saved him and the rest of the flight. And he was also lucky.
> If my memory serves me correct the skies had a very loaded down glider
> in the flavor of a 747 going through volcanic ash before they got
> their engines restarted. Tell me, what kept that plane flying besides
> the basic rules of flight?????
You're confusing the laws of physics with the rules and procedures of flying.
> LET ME GUESS, YOU WON'T answer.
Don't guess. Ask.
On Jun 30, 9:48*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > George is right and YOU are WRONG. WRONG AND SO WRONG.
>
> How many hours do you have flying 747s again?
Doesn't matter how many hours I have. A 747 without engines is a
glider.
> emergency (I bet Sully never types in uppercase). Sullenberger's glider rating
> had little to do with it, any more than his experience flying F-4s.
YOU DON"T FLY a real plane. YOU DON'T know from real world
experience. MY UPPER CASE DOESN"T change the fact you are wrong. It
just helps point out the fact. It' was Sully's glider rating that got
him down. YES, that so called lowly rating beneath you because you
can't keep up with a pokey C172.
LET ME REMIND YOU AGAIN, a 747 WITHOUT working engines is a glider.
WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
> You're confusing the laws of physics with the rules and procedures of flying.
DID YOU NOT SAY FLYING is using a yoke and rudder????? The basics of
flying is the same, you pull back on the stick you go up? You push
forward, you go down. A 747 with 4 dead engines is the same as the
Blanic I fly.
Or is it because YOU have no clue what you are talking about.
Mxsmanic
June 30th 10, 07:23 PM
writes:
> Doesn't matter how many hours I have. A 747 without engines is a
> glider.
If you can be an authority without any hours in a 747 or glider, why can't I
know anything from study and simulation?
> It' was Sully's glider rating that got him down.
That's not what Sully said.
> The basics of flying is the same, you pull back on the stick you
> go up? You push forward, you go down. A 747 with 4 dead engines
> is the same as the Blanic I fly.
I asked you how many hours you have in a 747 because you appear to have no
knowledge of the aircraft, particularly if you believe that a 747 without
engines is just a glider. Large airliners are very complex, even when the
engines are not running, and even an expert glider pilot will be in a heap of
trouble if he has to fly one of them without any knowledge beyond his gliding
skills.
On Jun 30, 1:23*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> and even an expert glider pilot will be in a heap of
> trouble if he has to fly one of them without any knowledge beyond his gliding
> skills.
And what is your experience to back this up. Let me guess. ZERO.
What is your experience to back up what you say for real world
flying????? Can we say ZERO.
Now that I have entered the gliding arena, YOU ARE SO WRONG in the
above, you just have no clue. I have learned more about flying in my
15 flights in a Blanick then I did in my almost 10 years in a Cessna
and Sundowner.
I would take my chances with me in a dead stick 747 landing over your
MSFS experience anyday. It may not be pretty but I would have a
chance where as YOU WOULD HAVE ZERO CHANCE.
WHY??? If you don't know why then it's obvious you don't fly a real
plane AND HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT TAKES TO FLY AN AIRPLANE. Alll the
pretty bells and whistles in a 747 mean squat when it comes to dead
engines. You fly it like a glider.
Let me guess, YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT TAKES TO FLY A GLIDER. If you
did, you wouldn't be here showing your incompetance!!!!!!!
HELLO, anybody HOME?????
george
June 30th 10, 09:36 PM
On Jul 1, 6:48*am, " > wrote:
> And what is your experience to back this up. *Let me guess. ZERO.
> What is your experience to back up what you say for real world
> flying????? *Can we say ZERO.
He doesn't fly aeroplanes of any type. He never has.
That's why he knows everything about flying..
we are PPLs , CPLs and further up the food chain with hundreds or
thousands of hours as PIC of aircraft from sailplanes, Cessna, Piper
through to B777 so what do we know....
Wingnut
July 1st 10, 03:35 AM
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> On Jun 29, 5:59Â*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>
>
>> Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
>> from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
>> relentless and unpleasant criticisms.
>
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>
>>I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No
>>problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
>>here. :-))))))))
> Dudley Henriques
>
> Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled
> to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and
> unpleasant criticisms".
Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I was
a liar, whether you intended to or not.
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
July 1st 10, 03:39 AM
On Jun 30, 10:35*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>
> >> Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks
> >> from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these
> >> relentless and unpleasant criticisms.
>
> > Dudley Henriques wrote;
>
> >>I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No
> >>problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone
> >>here. *:-))))))))
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> > Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled
> > to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and
> > unpleasant criticisms".
>
> Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I was
> a liar, whether you intended to or not.
I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all
the years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
inferring that someone was a liar.
Dudley Henriques
Wingnut
July 1st 10, 03:44 AM
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a
liar at worst.
What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
direction.
Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something.
All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
undermine mine.
The funny thing is it's clear from his retinue of loyal detractors that
he's a notorious troll, but what's less clear is where from. I'm pretty
familiar with the rec.arts.tv rogue's gallery by now ("trotsky",
"Ubiquitous", "Sound of Trumpet", and several nymshifting trolls
including "the homophobe", "the Obamaphobe", and the infamous Seamus
MacRae) and "Mxsmanic" isn't one of them. I'm guessing that like "Lady
Veteran" and "womanGoddess" before him he's a troll principally of other
groups that has decided to add to rec.arts.tv's sources of woe
temporarily for reasons probably beyond the ability of any sane mind to
fathom.
Jim Logajan
July 1st 10, 04:27 AM
Wingnut > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
> my side,
No one is against you. No one is for you, either.
> suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best
> and a liar at worst.
Provide a message ID reference and quote the sentence where he used the
word "incompetent" in reference to you.
Of course he didn't. Which is unfortunate, since you really are either
incompetent or a troll. And you can quote me on that.
I've never understood why anonymous posters seem to get their knickers in
an uproar - probably nobody knows who you really and I personally don't
care. If you've made your precious handle look bad, just start using a
bloody new one and start fresh. Stop vommiting your ego insecurities all
over Usenet. You screwed up - BFD. You'll live. Move on.
I know this has a large probability of being a pointless exercise, but I'll
try it anyway:
When you make assertions and one or more turn out to be wrong and make you
look stupid - remember you are in a lot of good company (i.e. you're
human.) So try showing some maturity and own up to the mistake as
succinctly and graciously as possible. If you can't manage that (it is
monumentally tough and I know real character when I see a genuine mea
culpa,) then try starting fresh like I suggested in my harsh response
above. And take the mistake as a learning point: specifically, that you
should always research before you post, and if you can't, put plenty of
qualifiers in your future assertions.
Wingnut
July 1st 10, 04:37 AM
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:34 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> On Jun 30, 10:35Â*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > On Jun 29, 5:59Â*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>>
>> >> Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked
>> >> attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke
>> >> these relentless and unpleasant criticisms.
>>
>> > Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>
>> >>I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
>> >>No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as
>> >>anyone here. Â*:-))))))))
>> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit
>> > puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these
>> > "relentless and unpleasant criticisms".
>>
>> Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I
>> was a liar, whether you intended to or not.
>
> I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all the
> years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
> inferring that someone was a liar.
It was in your post of June 28, at 11:13 am. It was a response to one of
my posts countering one of Mxsmanic's, and it implied (though it didn't
state outright) that I was lying on the topic of how much experience was
implied by a commercial license.
I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted
dishonestly here.
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
July 1st 10, 04:51 AM
On Jun 30, 10:44*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
> side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a
> liar at worst.
Is this the quote where you say I called you a liar? I believe you
have me mistaken for someone else. I've been known to disagree
strongly with people on occasion but I don't recall ever calling
someone a liar even in the most heated of exchanges.
FWIW, I will make it quite clear for you in this post. I do NOT
consider you a liar. I DO disagree on occasion with your opinions and
have so stated.
>
> What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
> suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
> providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
> spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
> kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
> direction.
I have no feeling for either you or Mx at this point in time. I have
disagreed many times with Mx on many issues as I am in disagreement
with you now on your charges of being called a liar. It is true that I
have at times taken a VERY strong stance on things Mx has presented on
these forums. In this thread however, I'm seeing comment by Mx that I
happen to agree with as well as comment from others here that I think
it incorrect in answers being presented to him.
On Usenet it's always a thread by thread situation when it comes to
agreeing or disagreeing with someone's comment. If I thought you were
correct in this thread or any other thread I was posting to I wouldn't
hesitate to agree with you.
>
> Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something.
This type of personal derogatory comment is part and parcel of exactly
why I'm disagreeing with your input on this thread at this time. I
won't respond in kind.
>
> All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
> still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
> detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
> what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
> undermine mine.
This "contest" thing seems quite important to you as you keep
referring to it. It's not important to me at all. On Usenet I judge
comment as either right or wrong in each sentence contributed. My
opinion in any response I offer is based on that and that alone. I
take no side for or against anyone here. Usenet isn't personal with me
any longer. I gave that up a while ago. I suggest you do the same.
>
> The funny thing is it's clear from his retinue of loyal detractors that
> he's a notorious troll, but what's less clear is where from. I'm pretty
> familiar with the rec.arts.tv rogue's gallery by now ("trotsky",
> "Ubiquitous", "Sound of Trumpet", and several nymshifting trolls
> including "the homophobe", "the Obamaphobe", and the infamous Seamus
> MacRae) and "Mxsmanic" isn't one of them. I'm guessing that like "Lady
> Veteran" and "womanGoddess" before him he's a troll principally of other
> groups that has decided to add to rec.arts.tv's sources of woe
> temporarily for reasons probably beyond the ability of any sane mind to
> fathom.
My interest is restricted to aviation matters. That's why I come here.
Mx can be a troll but I really don't care what he is. If his posts
with me are legit I handle them as I would any other on topic post. If
he goes off topic or trolls me I simply disengage. I used to take
people on head to head but I make an honest effort not to do that any
more. It just isn't worth the trouble.
If you see me in some other light or see any agreement from me
relating to MX as an affront to you, I can't be responsible for that.
As I say, I deal with individuals I meet on Usenet AS individuals, NOT
as a member of any "group" for or against someone on the forum.
Sorry you see things the way you do but as I've said, I can't be
responsible for how you relate to me. All I can do is inform you that
you're mistaken.
Best to you,
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
July 1st 10, 04:55 AM
On Jun 30, 11:37*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:34 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 10:35*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> > On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>
> >> >> Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked
> >> >> attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke
> >> >> these relentless and unpleasant criticisms.
>
> >> > Dudley Henriques wrote;
>
> >> >>I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
> >> >>No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as
> >> >>anyone here. *:-))))))))
> >> > Dudley Henriques
>
> >> > Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit
> >> > puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these
> >> > "relentless and unpleasant criticisms".
>
> >> Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I
> >> was a liar, whether you intended to or not.
>
> > I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all the
> > years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
> > inferring that someone was a liar.
>
> It was in your post of June 28, at 11:13 am. It was a response to one of
> my posts countering one of Mxsmanic's, and it implied (though it didn't
> state outright) that I was lying on the topic of how much experience was
> implied by a commercial license.
>
> I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted
> dishonestly here.
If you have the time of the post and the date of the post, please POST
the post so it can be properly referenced in relation to your charge?
Thank you
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
July 1st 10, 05:21 AM
On Jun 30, 11:37*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:34 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 10:35*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> >> > On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut > wrote:
>
> >> >> Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked
> >> >> attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke
> >> >> these relentless and unpleasant criticisms.
>
> >> > Dudley Henriques wrote;
>
> >> >>I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
> >> >>No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as
> >> >>anyone here. *:-))))))))
> >> > Dudley Henriques
>
> >> > Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit
> >> > puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these
> >> > "relentless and unpleasant criticisms".
>
> >> Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I
> >> was a liar, whether you intended to or not.
>
> > I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all the
> > years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
> > inferring that someone was a liar.
>
> It was in your post of June 28, at 11:13 am. It was a response to one of
> my posts countering one of Mxsmanic's, and it implied (though it didn't
> state outright) that I was lying on the topic of how much experience was
> implied by a commercial license.
>
> I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted
> dishonestly here.
I just read the post you have referenced. It shows on my reader as
post #256 in answer to your post referencing "Cessna strawmen".
I'll be completely honest with you Wingnut, I don't believe any
reasonable person reading my response to you will find anything even
remotely coming close to calling you a "liar". I did disagree with
your basic premise about the Cessna reference, and I even went VERY
much out of my way to include not only a smile emoticon for you before
submitting my comment but a LONG smile emoticon to emphasize the non
aggressive nature of my response.
I do realize at this point that you are obviously taking dissenting
comment by others to indicate a personal attack directed at you. I can
only tell you that in my case at least, you are grossly mistaken.
I also believe I've spent enough time dealing with this non-issue, and
suggest we drop it at this point and move on to more productive
discussion.
Dudley Henriques
ClassCastException
July 1st 10, 05:38 AM
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:27:06 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
> Wingnut > wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
>> my side,
>
> No one is against you.
On the contrary. I made what should have been a plain, uncontroversial
statement and was attacked by Mxsmanic. I responded in my own defense and
was promptly attacked again. Every subsequent time I've responded in my
own defense, I've been attacked yet again, usually by Mxsmanic but
sometimes by Dudley Henriques and now, suddenly, by Hatunen and yourself.
I hadn't even seen you in this thread before. It doesn't therefore seem
to me that you even have a dog in this race, so what prompted your sudden
participation?
>> suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a
>> liar at worst.
>
> Provide a message ID reference and quote the sentence where he used the
> word "incompetent" in reference to you.
He didn't actually use the word "incompetent". Rather, he was subtle
enough to insinuate these things without stating them outright.
> Of course he didn't. Which is unfortunate, since you really are either
> incompetent or a troll. And you can quote me on that.
**** you too, and the modem you dialed in on.
It looks like my attackers are becoming more overt and vocal in their
attacks. But why? I did nothing to provoke them. All I did, and I repeat,
was say:
"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."
Why should this be a "crime" for which I get "sentenced" to perpetual
flaming by you and your buddies?
Oh, yeah -- it shouldn't. The only reason why this is happening is
because you and Mxsmanic are assholes and trolls. And you can quote me on
that.
> I've never understood why anonymous posters seem to get their knickers
> in an uproar - probably nobody knows who you really and I personally
> don't care. If you've made your precious handle look bad
But that's just it -- I haven't. A small number of people are acting
hostile, apparently because yonder troll Mxsmanic has a few more admirers
than originally suspected. I haven't done anything wrong. What I did was
call Mxsmanic on some misbehavior of his, and now his tiny little handful
of friends are leaping to his defense. And poorly; rather than trying to
defend or excuse his actions, they're simply attacking his detractors.
Really, do you honestly believe very many people will be swayed to
Msxmanic's side by such an obviously bogus ad hominem argument as
"Wingnut is an incompetent troll"? Most people are smarter than that. And
the other two are Mxsmanic and yourself. :-)
> You screwed up - BFD.
No. I did NOT screw up. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with
"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."
and more people agree with me than disagree with me. So far dozens of
people have criticized Mxsmanic's position, and their criticisms have
consisted largely of reasoned arguments. Meanwhile, how many people have
criticized mine? Four, and their criticisms have consisted of such
brilliantly logical arguments as "Wingnut is an incompetent troll".
I think it's pretty clear which side is right and which is wrong, both on
the evidence and if you regard it as a popularity contest.
Which is what makes it odd that you would jump in at this late date and
on the obviously losing side of the debate. Just a sucker for underdogs,
perhaps, even when said underdogs are underdogs for the very good reason
that they lack merit?
Still, it's like you're a Leafs fan that suddenly walks into a Penguins
bar wearing a Leafs jersey and says, loudly, "The Penguins suck and the
Leafs rule!"
Where I come from that's described aptly with the phrase "cruising for a
bruising".
> I know this has a large probability of being a pointless exercise, but
> I'll try it anyway:
(Jim Logajan goes on to spew a large number of similar ad hominem
arguments, most of them boiling down to "Wingnut is stupid, therefore
Mxsmanic's position is the one you should believe". When stated in such
terms, however, it's obviously an invalid syllogism.)
> a genuine mea culpa
I have nothing to apologize for. I stand by my position and against
Mxsmanic's and certainly your ad hominem arguments and unpleasant,
insulting bluster will never convince me to change my mind. Only reason
and logic will.
In fact, responding not only with invalid arguments but with increasingly
shrill tones, hostility, verbal violence, and the threat of escalated
verbal violence will do a lot to convince me that my original position is
the correct one for me to take, both because if you were really on the
side of truth and right you would not need to resort to such methods to
try to convert me and because I believe it is not proper to reward such
transparently coercive tactics by permitting them to succeed.
If by sticking to my original position I make your coercive tactics fail,
then I have done the world a great service, for every increment less
effective such tactics are corresponds to an incremental reduction in the
incentive of bullies like you to try to exploit such tactics against
others.
And so I repeat again the statement that has surprisingly provoked such a
lot of vitriol from a small number of highly vocal nutcases:
"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."
P.S. your dishonest attempt to suppress my response from appearing in
most of the newsgroups you attacked me in, to wit, your silent followup-
to, has been neutralized. Methinks maybe you made the mistake of
believing your own propaganda and, thus, the fatal error of thinking I'm
*actually* an incompetent troll, when in fact nothing could be further
from the truth.
Wingnut
July 1st 10, 05:46 AM
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:55:13 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:37Â*pm, Wingnut > wrote:
>> I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted
>> dishonestly here.
>
> If you have the time of the post and the date of the post, please POST
> the post so it can be properly referenced in relation to your charge?
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that YOUR charge against me deserves further
airtime. Repost it yourself if you feel the need but I have no intention
of doing your own dirty work for you. Sorry.
Wingnut
July 1st 10, 05:47 AM
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:38:12 +0000, ClassCastException wrote something.
I don't know what happened here. I normally use that name in another
newsgroup, and Wingnut in this one. Some kind of malfunction with my news
server I guess.
JohnT[_3_]
July 1st 10, 08:50 AM
"Wingnut" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
> side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a
> liar at worst.
>
> What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
> suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
> providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
> spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
> kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
> direction.
>
> Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something.
>
> All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
> still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
> detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
> what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
> undermine mine.
>
What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
incompetent or a liar or must have recently suffered a head injury or
something. Usenet exists for the exchange of views and this thread has been
boringly tame so far. Not even (to use an English expression) "handbags at 4
paces". And I can never ever recollect Hatunen being a detractor of anyone.
He disagrees with Mxsmanic frequently, as do many of us, but that is just a
simple exchange of views and I have never ever noticed a trace of personal
animosity to anyone in any of his many postings over the years.
--
JohnT
Hatunen
July 1st 10, 06:32 PM
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
>side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a
>liar at worst.
>
>What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
>suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
>providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
>spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
>kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
>direction.
Being wrong is being wrong. Although the post eliciting your
erroneous criticism was by Dudley Henriques, I'm not clear how my
comment makes me an ally of Mixie. In any case, using faulty
arguments to refute arguments is a bit problematic.
>Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something.
>
>All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
>still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
>detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
>what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
>undermine mine.
Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie. But he
actually has been right on a couple of occasions and I have said
so. I beleive once was in 2006 and again in 2007.
>The funny thing is it's clear from his retinue of loyal detractors that
>he's a notorious troll, but what's less clear is where from. I'm pretty
>familiar with the rec.arts.tv rogue's gallery by now ("trotsky",
>"Ubiquitous", "Sound of Trumpet", and several nymshifting trolls
>including "the homophobe", "the Obamaphobe", and the infamous Seamus
>MacRae) and "Mxsmanic" isn't one of them. I'm guessing that like "Lady
>Veteran" and "womanGoddess" before him he's a troll principally of other
>groups that has decided to add to rec.arts.tv's sources of woe
>temporarily for reasons probably beyond the ability of any sane mind to
>fathom.
Ah. You see one fof the problems here is that this is all
cross-posted to:
(a) rec.aviation.piloting,
(b) rec.travel.air,
(c) rec.arts.movies.past-films,
(d) rec.arts.tv,
(e) alt.gossip.celebrities
I can see how the topic is relevant to (a) and (b), the group I'm
in, but the relevance to (c), (d) and (e) certainly hard to see.
In fact, I think I'll reset Followups.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
The Starmaker
July 2nd 10, 09:39 PM
Hatunen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
> >side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a
> >liar at worst.
> >
> >What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
> >suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
> >providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
> >spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
> >kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
> >direction.
>
> Being wrong is being wrong. Although the post eliciting your
> erroneous criticism was by Dudley Henriques, I'm not clear how my
> comment makes me an ally of Mixie. In any case, using faulty
> arguments to refute arguments is a bit problematic.
>
> >Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something.
> >
> >All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
> >still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
> >detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
> >what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
> >undermine mine.
>
> Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie. But he
> actually has been right on a couple of occasions and I have said
> so. I beleive once was in 2006 and again in 2007.
I rather be a broken clock...
airplanes...all they do is CRASH!
Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands. You only hear about it when a rock star
is in it....
and what about all those 'used' airplanes for sale? You buy one and you're dead.
The Starmaker
Jim Logajan
July 2nd 10, 11:12 PM
The Starmaker > wrote:
> airplanes...all they do is CRASH!
Usenet cross-posters ... all they do is TROLL!
> Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands.
The NTSB knows:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
A total of 534 aviation fatalities in 2009 in the U.S.
By comparison, allegedly 450 deaths per year occurred in the U.S. due to
people falling out of bed:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_fal_inv_bed-mortality-fall-involving-bed
Possible supporting stats here:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/nursing.htm
Another perspective: there were a total of 366 weather-caused deaths in
the U.S.:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/sum09.pdf
General NOAA weather hazard stats page:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml
BOTTOM LINE:
You ain't safe in bed or outdoors - so may as well have some fun flying!
george
July 2nd 10, 11:20 PM
On Jul 3, 10:12*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> The Starmaker > wrote:
> > airplanes...all they do is CRASH!
>
> Usenet cross-posters ... all they do is TROLL!
>
> > Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands.
>
> The NTSB knows:http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
>
> A total of 534 aviation fatalities in 2009 in the U.S.
>
> By comparison, allegedly 450 deaths per year occurred in the U.S. due to
> people falling out of bed:
I'd hate to know what your road fatality figures are yet the trolling
one (if old enough) must drive.
The Starmaker
July 2nd 10, 11:31 PM
george wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 10:12 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > The Starmaker > wrote:
> > > airplanes...all they do is CRASH!
> >
> > Usenet cross-posters ... all they do is TROLL!
> >
> > > Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands.
> >
> > The NTSB knows:http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
> >
> > A total of 534 aviation fatalities in 2009 in the U.S.
> >
> > By comparison, allegedly 450 deaths per year occurred in the U.S. due to
> > people falling out of bed:
>
> I'd hate to know what your road fatality figures are yet the trolling
> one (if old enough) must drive.
There are a lot more cars on the ground than planes in the air...
If I run out of gasoline, or my car..stalls, I'm not going to crash into
the ground!
In rec.aviation.piloting george > wrote:
> On Jul 3, 10:12Â*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> The Starmaker > wrote:
>> > airplanes...all they do is CRASH!
>>
>> Usenet cross-posters ... all they do is TROLL!
>>
>> > Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands.
>>
>> The NTSB knows:http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
>>
>> A total of 534 aviation fatalities in 2009 in the U.S.
>>
>> By comparison, allegedly 450 deaths per year occurred in the U.S. due to
>> people falling out of bed:
>
> I'd hate to know what your road fatality figures are yet the trolling
> one (if old enough) must drive.
That would require a job in order to pay for the car, gas, and insurance.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
The Starmaker
July 2nd 10, 11:38 PM
Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> The Starmaker > wrote:
> > airplanes...all they do is CRASH!
>
> Usenet cross-posters ... all they do is TROLL!
>
> > Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands.
>
> The NTSB knows:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
>
> A total of 534 aviation fatalities in 2009 in the U.S.
>
> By comparison, allegedly 450 deaths per year occurred in the U.S. due to
> people falling out of bed:
Are you comparing how many people are *in* bed with how many planes there are in the air?
There are not 300 million airplanes in the sky...
Planes crash because....they run out of whatever keeps them up in the air...
The Starmaker
You put a washing machine in the air...you better have enough quaters to keep it flying.
Jim Logajan
July 2nd 10, 11:56 PM
The Starmaker > wrote:
> If I run out of gasoline, or my car..stalls, I'm not going to crash
> into the ground!
Ha - I've flown aircraft that had no gasoline or other fuel and never
crashed into the ground!
(I was piloting a glider....)
Jim Logajan
July 3rd 10, 12:08 AM
The Starmaker > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker > wrote:
>> > airplanes...all they do is CRASH!
>>
>> Usenet cross-posters ... all they do is TROLL!
>>
>> > Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands.
>>
>> The NTSB knows:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
>>
>> A total of 534 aviation fatalities in 2009 in the U.S.
>>
>> By comparison, allegedly 450 deaths per year occurred in the U.S. due
>> to people falling out of bed:
>
>
> Are you comparing how many people are *in* bed with how many planes
> there are in the air?
>
> There are not 300 million airplanes in the sky...
But U.S. airlines carried 704 million passengers in 2009:
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts029_10/html/bts029_10.html
(And that was a down year.)
> Planes crash because....they run out of whatever keeps them up in the
> air...
People crash out of bed because....they run out of safety blankets.
> You put a washing machine in the air...you better have enough quaters
> to keep it flying.
That's probably why bricks plummet to the ground: no place to insert
quarters.
The Starmaker
July 3rd 10, 12:10 AM
Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> The Starmaker > wrote:
> > If I run out of gasoline, or my car..stalls, I'm not going to crash
> > into the ground!
>
> Ha - I've flown aircraft that had no gasoline or other fuel and never
> crashed into the ground!
>
> (I was piloting a glider....)
That doesn't mean that gliders don't crash...
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=glider+crashes&ech=13&psi=g3EuTJz3AYnSpATPyKGUBA12781121269930&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=jHEuTM7AN4rGnAfLzMWKBA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=6&ved=0CDcQsAQwBQ
The Starmaker
July 3rd 10, 12:22 AM
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker > wrote:
> > > If I run out of gasoline, or my car..stalls, I'm not going to crash
> > > into the ground!
> >
> > Ha - I've flown aircraft that had no gasoline or other fuel and never
> > crashed into the ground!
> >
> > (I was piloting a glider....)
>
> That doesn't mean that gliders don't crash...
>
> http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=glider+crashes&ech=13&psi=g3EuTJz3AYnSpATPyKGUBA12781121269930&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=jHEuTM7AN4rGnAfLzMWKBA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=6&ved=0CDcQsAQwBQ
two die in glider...
http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/news/2008/09/02/glider_crash_465x288_020908_t312.jpg
probably ran out of ...air?
It's not gliding, ...it's trying to crash.
george
July 3rd 10, 01:14 AM
On Jul 3, 11:22*am, The Starmaker > wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> > > The Starmaker > wrote:
> > > > If I run out of gasoline, or my car..stalls, I'm not going to crash
> > > > into the ground!
>
> > > Ha - I've flown aircraft that had no gasoline or other fuel and never
> > > crashed into the ground!
>
> > > (I was piloting a glider....)
>
> > That doesn't mean that gliders don't crash...
>
> >http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=glider+crashes&ech=13ø=g3EuTJ...
>
> two die in glider...http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/news/2008/09/02/glider_crash_465x28...
>
> probably ran out of ...air?
>
> It's not gliding, ...it's trying to crash.
In the real world we dont use cotton wool.
There are dangers in anything worth doing.
And flying is certainly something well worth doing !.
Hatunen
July 3rd 10, 04:36 PM
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:56:03 -0500, Jim Logajan
> wrote:
>The Starmaker > wrote:
>> If I run out of gasoline, or my car..stalls, I'm not going to crash
>> into the ground!
>
>Ha - I've flown aircraft that had no gasoline or other fuel and never
>crashed into the ground!
>
>(I was piloting a glider....)
Standard ploy by the examiner when you are taking the flight test
is to cut the throttle to idling (to simulate loss of engine) and
to say "Emergency". The testee has to make a simulated emergency
landing by quickly picking out a suitable place to set the plane
down, perhaps a farm field or dirt road, and then land the plane.
However, the landing is done in the air 500 feet above the
potential landing site.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Wingnut
July 4th 10, 09:24 AM
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
>>side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and
>>a liar at worst.
>>
>>What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
>>suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
>>providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
>>spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
>>kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
>>direction.
>
> Being wrong is being wrong.
Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong.
Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us was
right?
>>All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
>>still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
>>detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
>>what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
>>undermine mine.
>
> Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie.
I just call 'em as I see 'em. It seems you're a fair-weather ally. For a
while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's
nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off
with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify
to provoke you. Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I
can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather
than I did something to push you away from mine.
Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I
continue to stand by what I said:
"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."
(Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post
in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do
I?)
Wingnut
July 4th 10, 09:42 AM
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote:
> "Wingnut" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
>> my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best
>> and a liar at worst.
>>
>> What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
>> suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
>> providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
>> spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side.
>> That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the
>> other direction.
>>
>> Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something.
>>
>> All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
>> still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
>> detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
>> what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
>> undermine mine.
>>
> What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
> incompetent or a liar or must have recently suffered a head injury or
> something.
No, I'm saying that someone who just suddenly CHANGES sides like that is
PROBABLY either suffering something or has been suborned.
From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
another for years. Then I come along and, innocently, say:
"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."
This shouldn't even have been controversial but apparently Mxsmanic saw
it and has a bee in his bonnet about such things, so he posts attacking
me. And Hatunen follows him and starts posting attacking Mxsmanic.
For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I wrote,
so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying to frame
me as some kind of moron or incompetent. All the while just making
himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars, and being flamed by Hatunen
and several other people he's apparently made enemies of over the years.
Until last week, when all of a sudden Hatunen starts flaming me instead,
apparently having gone over to Mxsmanic's side.
You aren't enemies with someone for years and then suddenly take their
side one day without some kind of precipitating incident. Head injury,
payoff, something. Considering also that Mxsmanic is simply wrong, it's
not like Hatunen just had an epiphany and saw the light or something.
That kind of thing only goes in the opposite direction.
If you say you're sure he hasn't been suborned, then I'd like to know
what you think DID convince Hatunen to abruptly switch sides in this
little dispute.
> Usenet exists for the exchange of views and this thread has
> been boringly tame so far. Not even (to use an English expression)
> "handbags at 4 paces". And I can never ever recollect Hatunen being a
> detractor of anyone.
Until now. He's just called me several nasty names in a couple of recent
posts.
> He disagrees with Mxsmanic frequently, as do many of us,
or rather, he used to,
> but that is just a simple exchange of views and I have never ever
> noticed a trace of personal animosity to anyone in any of his many
> postings over the years.
Again, until now. Personal animosity against me is dripping from his
posts of June 29 and July 1 -- condescension, lecturing at me like I'm
some wayward little child, the whole works. Standard-issue Usenet flaming
of the first kind: portray your opponent as an imbecile in need of
special hand-holding in order to discredit whatever he's been saying.
(The second kind would be to suggest, somewhat slyly, sexual peccadilloes
or outright perversion on your opponent's part; the third is simply to
come right out and blast him or her with torrents of vulgar profanity,
namecalling, accusations, and other unsubtle invective. All three amount
to logically-invalid ad hominem arguments of course.)
The key thing is that in flaming me in any of those ways he shows that he
now considers me to BE his opponent, rather than an ally against
Mxsmanic. His having switched sides is thus apparent; by the logic of
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and the evident fact that he now
regards me as an enemy, plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy,
one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the only
remaining question is why.
The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could. If Mxsmanic has
discovered some strong means of influencing others all of a sudden, it's
conceivable that he might suborn all of us into supporting his craziness.
Knowing the mechanism would allow this hazard to be better quantified.
For instance, if it's simple blackmail I'm immune, lacking any dirt in my
past for him to dig up, but he could turn the rest of the people here to
his side and then have them all gang up and hound me mercilessly about
Usenet with vicious flaming, effectively neutralizing me by discrediting
me under this name. (I'd just start using a new one, but presumably if I
touched this topic again history would repeat itself, with my words and a
Google search by Mxsmanic bringing the whole lot of 'em down on my head
like a bag of hammers.) On the other hand, if he has some kind of zombie
slave potion he's feeding people, I'd have to meet him in person under
circumstances that enabled him to slip me a mickey to be vulnerable, and
it's likely only a handful of people here are actually at risk of being
suborned. If he has some sort of bogus "proof" of his nonsense sufficient
to fool imbeciles, it won't work on me. If it's a mind control ray, I'm
in trouble -- I left my tinfoil hat behind the last time I moved
house. :-)
Mxsmanic
July 4th 10, 05:05 PM
Wingnut writes:
> From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
> another for years.
As hard as it may be to believe, some people are neither for nor against each
other.
> For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I wrote,
> so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying to frame
> me as some kind of moron or incompetent.
I don't even remember what you wrote, so it can hardly leave me incensed.
> All the while just making
> himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
> brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars ...
Even if that were true, I'm not sure why I should care what anyone on
rec.arts.tv thinks about aviation. But it does make me smile (which is rare
these days, as I have little to smile about).
> ... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...
OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)
> ... one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the only
> remaining question is why.
The Trilateral Illuminati Freemasons Commission insisted--it was an essential
step in their quest for world domination and mind-control. We are but pawns in
the Grand Plan. I know the location of the keystone, and I have tickets for
the Rose Line.
> The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
> switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could.
And civilization--as we know it--would crumble into dust.
Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
Hatunen
July 4th 10, 05:30 PM
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my
>>>side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and
>>>a liar at worst.
>>>
>>>What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
>>>suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
>>>providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
>>>spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That
>>>kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other
>>>direction.
>>
>> Being wrong is being wrong.
>
>Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong.
>Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us was
>right?
I hate to be trite, but two wrongs don't make a right.
But in this case I never said Mixie was right. Mixie wasn't the
poster in question. In fact, the exchange in qustion was:
Dudley Henriques:
>> Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
>> commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
>> more complicated than a light complex.
You:
>This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
>could spell "certified" correctly.
You accused Dudley of spelling a word incorrectly although he was
using a perfectly good word. And you were wrong.
I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a
sock puppet of Mixie's.
>>>All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
>>>still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
>>>detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
>>>what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
>>>undermine mine.
>>
>> Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie.
>
>I just call 'em as I see 'em.
As do I.
>It seems you're a fair-weather ally.
Ally? You seem to think it's a war. I'm all for you telling Mixie
or Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong
yourself.
>For a
>while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's
>nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off
>with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify
>to provoke you.
That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but
it wasn't. So that makes you wrong again. It also tells me qutie
a bit about you.
>Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I
>can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather
>than I did something to push you away from mine.
>
>Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I
>continue to stand by what I said:
>
>"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>would have become quite relevant indeed."
As I note above, that wasn't the quote in question.
>(Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post
>in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do
>I?)
Attack post? That comment tells me even more about you.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
July 4th 10, 05:32 PM
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote:
>
>> "Wingnut" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
>>> my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best
>>> and a liar at worst.
>>>
>>> What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
>>> suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
>>> providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
>>> spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side.
>>> That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the
>>> other direction.
>>>
>>> Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something.
>>>
>>> All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it
>>> still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen
>>> detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter
>>> what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and
>>> undermine mine.
>>>
>> What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you must be
>> incompetent or a liar or must have recently suffered a head injury or
>> something.
>
>No, I'm saying that someone who just suddenly CHANGES sides like that is
>PROBABLY either suffering something or has been suborned.
>
>From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
>another for years. Then I come along and, innocently, say:
>
>"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>would have become quite relevant indeed."
Again, as I note in another post rsponding to this assertion,
that wasn't the quote in question.
[Lines and lines of diatribe deleted. My, you do carry on.]
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
July 4th 10, 08:26 PM
On Jul 4, 12:30*pm, Hatunen > wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a
> sock puppet of Mixie's.
Surely you jest? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
Best way to eliminate this laughable mystery would be to have someone
who knows me personally on the forum through private email write to me
then ask them what was said in our private email. Jim Logajan could do
that if you wish. Personally I would hope you are a much better judge
of character than having to do this as I see it as a waste of
bandwidth, but what the hell...........have a go if you wish;
otherwise, you have my word that what you are postulating as a
possibility is a waste of your "thinking time" :-))
Dudley Henriques
> * ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
> * ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
> * ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
george
July 4th 10, 09:19 PM
On Jul 5, 7:26*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:30*pm, Hatunen > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> > I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a
> > sock puppet of Mixie's.
>
> Surely you jest? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
> Best way to eliminate this laughable mystery would be to have someone
> who knows me personally on the forum through private email write to me
> then ask them what was said in our private email. Jim Logajan could do
> that if you wish. Personally I would hope you are a much better judge
> of character than having to do this as I see it as a waste of
> bandwidth, but what the hell...........have a go if you wish;
> otherwise, you have my word that what you are postulating as a
> possibility is a waste of your "thinking time" :-))
> Dudley Henriques
Okay folks it's about time those cockpit management skills were
brought into action and the old saw of front seat cooperation came to
mean something..
Time to take a breath, say bugger or whatever and keep posting
aviation stuff...
a[_3_]
July 4th 10, 10:21 PM
On Jul 4, 3:26*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:30*pm, Hatunen > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> > I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a
> > sock puppet of Mixie's.
>
> Surely you jest? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
> Best way to eliminate this laughable mystery would be to have someone
> who knows me personally on the forum through private email write to me
> then ask them what was said in our private email. Jim Logajan could do
> that if you wish. Personally I would hope you are a much better judge
> of character than having to do this as I see it as a waste of
> bandwidth, but what the hell...........have a go if you wish;
> otherwise, you have my word that what you are postulating as a
> possibility is a waste of your "thinking time" :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>
> > * ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
> > * ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
> > * ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
I can't speak for you, Dudley, but I would be concerned about the
opinions others might have of me only if I valued their opinion.
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
July 4th 10, 11:01 PM
On Jul 4, 5:21*pm, a > wrote:
> On Jul 4, 3:26*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 12:30*pm, Hatunen > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> > > I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a
> > > sock puppet of Mixie's.
>
> > Surely you jest? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
> > Best way to eliminate this laughable mystery would be to have someone
> > who knows me personally on the forum through private email write to me
> > then ask them what was said in our private email. Jim Logajan could do
> > that if you wish. Personally I would hope you are a much better judge
> > of character than having to do this as I see it as a waste of
> > bandwidth, but what the hell...........have a go if you wish;
> > otherwise, you have my word that what you are postulating as a
> > possibility is a waste of your "thinking time" :-))
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> > > * ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
> > > * ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
> > > * ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
>
> I can't speak for you, Dudley, but I would be concerned about the
> opinions others might have of me only if I valued their opinion.
It's a shame. There was a time on this forum when I valued opinion and
had my opinion valued. That was LONG ago :-)
Dudley Henriques
"Wingnut" > wrote in message
...
>
> I just call 'em as I see 'em. It seems you're a fair-weather ally. For a
> while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's
> nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off
> with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify
> to provoke you. Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I
> can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather
> than I did something to push you away from mine.
>
> Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I
> continue to stand by what I said:
>
> "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
> would have become quite relevant indeed."
>
> (Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post
> in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do
> I?)
http://www.rofl.name/lolcity/
Wingnut
July 7th 10, 06:52 AM
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Wingnut writes:
>
>> From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
>> another for years.
>
> As hard as it may be to believe, some people are neither for nor against
> each other.
True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
obvious, indeed blindingly so.
Is this a subtle attempt to rewrite history and claim that he's always
been your ally, as a means of deflecting uncomfortable questions
regarding why he switched sides? After all if he didn't switch sides
questions about why he did will look silly rather than calling your
character into question, so such a pretense would seem to serve a useful
purpose for you.
>> For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I
>> wrote, so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying
>> to frame me as some kind of moron or incompetent.
>
> I don't even remember what you wrote
Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly
just to nettle you?
No problem. Used to be you were facing a certain death sentence, but,
these days, there are treatment options that can dramatically slow the
progression of Alzheimer's.
Anyway, here it is again:
"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."
>> All the while just making
>> himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
>> brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars ...
>
> Even if that were true, I'm not sure why I should care what anyone on
> rec.arts.tv thinks about aviation.
Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup with
a lot of posts on the topic, though.
>> ... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...
>
> OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)
I don't know. Why can't we? Why is it that after I posted
"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."
(there it is again!)
you started making repeated nasty and sly suggestions about me in public?
Insulting my intelligence repeatedly by talking down to me, suggesting
that there was something wrong with my thinking, and things like that?
It seems you cannot stand to read an opinion that differs from your own
without responding with at least a sneering and looking-down-the-nose
tone to whomever just posted it. And *that* makes it hard for anyone to
get along with you, specifically.
The bigger problem is that, while you are entitled to your own opinion,
you aren't entitled to your own facts, and your repeated implicit claim
that learning curves could veer wildly about rather than being monotonic
increasing is simply laughable from a scientific perspective.
>> ... one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the
>> only remaining question is why.
>
> The Trilateral Illuminati Freemasons Commission insisted--it was an
> essential step in their quest for world domination and mind-control.
Based on various references and other data, I compute a greater than 97%
chance that this response is a lie intended to conceal a more mundane and
sordid explanation of some sort, with a probable secondary purpose of
trying to make me look silly.
But it was not *I* that brought world domination and Freemasons into the
discussion...so who *really* is the silly one?
> We are but pawns in the Grand Plan. I know the location of the keystone,
> and I have tickets for the Rose Line.
Yeah, yeah, and meanwhile I'm the chairman of the shadow government of
the United States of America and with a word I could have your hometown
nuked to bedrock. :-)
>> The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
>> switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could.
>
> And civilization--as we know it--would crumble into dust.
Perhaps nothing quote so melodramatic, but if the same happened on a
larger scale, involving many "Mxsmanics" that felt entitled not only to
their own opinions but to their own facts, we could see a repeat of what
happened the *last* time such a thing happened.
That was when the Catholic Church, in particular, gained power over much
of Europe and actively promoted ignorance and superstitious beliefs over
knowledge and science. We know the result as the Dark Ages. Witch hunts,
inquisitions, crusades. Cholera, smallpox, bubonic plague. I really don't
think we want a repeat of all that. Do you?
> Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
No, not really. Certainly not with you.
Wingnut
July 7th 10, 06:54 AM
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:32:34 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> > wrote:
>>From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
>>another for years. Then I come along and, innocently, say:
>>
>>"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>>the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>>would have become quite relevant indeed."
>
> Again, as I note in another post rsponding to this assertion, that
> wasn't the quote in question.
Of course it was. That was what I said (and ALL I said, aside from quoted
text, attribution, and headers) in the post that Mxsmanic originally
attacked and that started this whole ball rolling.
Anyone who is unsure can use Google Groups to verify the truth of the
above statement.
Wingnut
July 7th 10, 07:07 AM
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:30:45 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
>>>>my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best
>>>>and a liar at worst.
>>>>
>>>>What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
>>>>suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
>>>>providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
>>>>spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side.
>>>>That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the
>>>>other direction.
>>>
>>> Being wrong is being wrong.
>>
>>Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong.
>>Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us
>>was right?
>
> I hate to be trite, but two wrongs don't make a right.
So, you're saying BOTH of us are wrong?
That's impossible by the Law of the Excluded Middle.
I say P and Mxsmanic says ~P, where P is:
"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
would have become quite relevant indeed."
Now, either P or ~P. Either I'm right or Mxsmanic is right. If you claim
that I'm wrong, then you claim that Mxsmanic is right, and I am being
quite fair in characterizing you as having taken his side in the dispute
over P vs. ~P.
(Actually, as near as I can tell the dispute is really over the implied
statement that her prior flight experience would have been an advantage.
Were Mxsmanic's hilarious claim that it would have been a *dis*advantage
to somehow amazingly turn out to be true, upending decades of research on
learning curves and cognitive science, then P itself would actually be
supported by this -- her prior flight experience would indeed have been
relevant, though not in the way I intended to imply.)
Regardless of all of the above, either P or ~P. You cannot support, or
oppose, both simultaneously.
(And don't give me any guff about Gödel incompleteness, either, or mark
my words I'll turn this thread into the kind of memorable event that
leaves whole newsgroup populations traumatized and fearful of newbies for
years afterward.)
> But in this case I never said Mixie was right.
You said I was wrong, which amounts to the same thing. Either P or ~P.
You cannot have it both ways.
The rest of your post has been deleted largely unread, since it seems you
need this lesson in elementary logic (namely, the Law of the Excluded
Middle) to osmose for a bit before you'll be capable of discussing the
issue rationally.
Have a nice day.
I will respond in-line to one or two bits that caught my eye skimming the
rest of your unpleasant and logic-deficient diatribe, though.
>>It seems you're a fair-weather ally.
>
> Ally? You seem to think it's a war.
It became one as soon as Mxsmanic, Dudley, you, and Jim Logajan began
making public insinuations about my intelligence and competence. It will
end when people stop making such insinuations and either let the topic
drop entirely or capitulate, say by apologizing and publicly retracting
their insinuations about me.
> I'm all for you telling Mixie or
> Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong yourself.
I didn't and I won't, thanks.
> That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but it
> wasn't.
By attacking my attack on "Mixie" you are defending "Mixie". What part of
the Law of the Excluded Middle (or, for that matter, of "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend") don't you understand?
(Nothing after that point was worthy of a response. I counted a few bits
of namecalling directed at me and a repetition of something already
addressed, and zero evidence or reasoned arguments in support of
Mxsmanic's position ~P.)
Wingnut
July 7th 10, 07:12 AM
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:04:51 -0400, Ala wrote:
> "Wingnut" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> I just call 'em as I see 'em. It seems you're a fair-weather ally. For
>> a while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's
>> nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired
>> off with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could
>> identify to provoke you. Nothing I said should logically have offended
>> you. All I can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his
>> side, rather than I did something to push you away from mine.
>>
>> Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong",
>> I continue to stand by what I said:
>>
>> "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>> would have become quite relevant indeed."
>>
>> (Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post
>> in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now,
>> do I?)
>
> http://www.rofl.name/lolcity/
Cute. Why post this here though? Certainly you could have picked a more
violent flamewar to post it into. :-)
Mxsmanic
July 7th 10, 09:52 AM
Wingnut writes:
> True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
> obvious, indeed blindingly so.
Disagreement is not animosity.
> Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly
> just to nettle you?
If I read your posts at all, I generally scan them quickly.
> Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup with
> a lot of posts on the topic, though.
I just click on the reply button.
> > Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
>
> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
Then this conversation serves no further purpose.
Hatunen
July 7th 10, 09:04 PM
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:07:24 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:30:45 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
>>>>>my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best
>>>>>and a liar at worst.
>>>>>
>>>>>What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now
>>>>>suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
>>>>>providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine,
>>>>>spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side.
>>>>>That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the
>>>>>other direction.
>>>>
>>>> Being wrong is being wrong.
>>>
>>>Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong.
>>>Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us
>>>was right?
>>
>> I hate to be trite, but two wrongs don't make a right.
>
>So, you're saying BOTH of us are wrong?
>
>That's impossible by the Law of the Excluded Middle.
>
>I say P and Mxsmanic says ~P, where P is:
>
>"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>would have become quite relevant indeed."
I never disagreed with that. Perhaps you have me confused with
another poster?
>Now, either P or ~P. Either I'm right or Mxsmanic is right. If you claim
>that I'm wrong, then you claim that Mxsmanic is right, and I am being
>quite fair in characterizing you as having taken his side in the dispute
>over P vs. ~P.
>
>(Actually, as near as I can tell the dispute is really over the implied
>statement that her prior flight experience would have been an advantage.
The borader dispute is over that question. But your dispute with
me is not.
[...]
>> But in this case I never said Mixie was right.
>
>You said I was wrong, which amounts to the same thing. Either P or ~P.
>You cannot have it both ways.
You're still arguing something other than the point I was making
about your error, which really had nothing to do with the broader
question but rather your claim that"certificate" wqas a
misspelling, whihc it is not.
[...]
>>>It seems you're a fair-weather ally.
>>
>> Ally? You seem to think it's a war.
>It became one as soon as Mxsmanic, Dudley, you, and Jim Logajan began
>making public insinuations about my intelligence and competence.
the only "insuation" I made was that your were wrong in your
claim that "certificate" was a misspelling. A bold face
statement, not an insuation.
>I will
>end when people stop making such insinuations and either let the topic
>drop entirely or capitulate, say by apologizing and publicly retracting
>their insinuations about me.
I'm not insuatuing at all. You're was whiney complainer who
apparently misreads comments to that you can complain about
things that weren't said.
>
> I'm all for you telling Mixie or
>> Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong yourself.
>
>I didn't and I won't, thanks.
>
>> That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but it
>> wasn't.
>
>By attacking my attack on "Mixie" you are defending "Mixie".
Interesting logic. In fact, I have no interest in being on
anyone's side.
>hat part of
>the Law of the Excluded Middle (or, for that matter, of "the enemy of my
>enemy is my friend") don't you understand?
>
>(Nothing after that point was worthy of a response. I counted a few bits
>of namecalling directed at me and a repetition of something already
>addressed, and zero evidence or reasoned arguments in support of
>Mxsmanic's position ~P.)
I've already plonked Mixe so I don't have to read his misaimed
comments and attempts to change the subject when he doesn't like
a response. I see no reason not to do the same for your paranoid
tantrums.
*plonk*
I can't help wondering how old you are, though.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
The Starmaker
July 7th 10, 11:09 PM
Wingnut wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > Wingnut writes:
> >
> >> From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
> >> another for years.
> >
> > As hard as it may be to believe, some people are neither for nor against
> > each other.
>
> True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
> obvious, indeed blindingly so.
>
> Is this a subtle attempt to rewrite history and claim that he's always
> been your ally, as a means of deflecting uncomfortable questions
> regarding why he switched sides? After all if he didn't switch sides
> questions about why he did will look silly rather than calling your
> character into question, so such a pretense would seem to serve a useful
> purpose for you.
>
> >> For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I
> >> wrote, so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying
> >> to frame me as some kind of moron or incompetent.
> >
> > I don't even remember what you wrote
>
> Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly
> just to nettle you?
>
> No problem. Used to be you were facing a certain death sentence, but,
> these days, there are treatment options that can dramatically slow the
> progression of Alzheimer's.
>
> Anyway, here it is again:
>
> "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
> would have become quite relevant indeed."
>
> >> All the while just making
> >> himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
> >> brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars ...
> >
> > Even if that were true, I'm not sure why I should care what anyone on
> > rec.arts.tv thinks about aviation.
>
> Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup with
> a lot of posts on the topic, though.
>
> >> ... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...
> >
> > OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)
>
> I don't know. Why can't we? Why is it that after I posted
>
> "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
> would have become quite relevant indeed."
>
> (there it is again!)
>
> you started making repeated nasty and sly suggestions about me in public?
> Insulting my intelligence repeatedly by talking down to me, suggesting
> that there was something wrong with my thinking, and things like that?
>
> It seems you cannot stand to read an opinion that differs from your own
> without responding with at least a sneering and looking-down-the-nose
> tone to whomever just posted it. And *that* makes it hard for anyone to
> get along with you, specifically.
>
> The bigger problem is that, while you are entitled to your own opinion,
> you aren't entitled to your own facts, and your repeated implicit claim
> that learning curves could veer wildly about rather than being monotonic
> increasing is simply laughable from a scientific perspective.
>
> >> ... one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the
> >> only remaining question is why.
> >
> > The Trilateral Illuminati Freemasons Commission insisted--it was an
> > essential step in their quest for world domination and mind-control.
>
> Based on various references and other data, I compute a greater than 97%
> chance that this response is a lie intended to conceal a more mundane and
> sordid explanation of some sort, with a probable secondary purpose of
> trying to make me look silly.
>
> But it was not *I* that brought world domination and Freemasons into the
> discussion...so who *really* is the silly one?
>
> > We are but pawns in the Grand Plan. I know the location of the keystone,
> > and I have tickets for the Rose Line.
>
> Yeah, yeah, and meanwhile I'm the chairman of the shadow government of
> the United States of America and with a word I could have your hometown
> nuked to bedrock. :-)
>
> >> The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
> >> switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could.
> >
> > And civilization--as we know it--would crumble into dust.
>
> Perhaps nothing quote so melodramatic, but if the same happened on a
> larger scale, involving many "Mxsmanics" that felt entitled not only to
> their own opinions but to their own facts, we could see a repeat of what
> happened the *last* time such a thing happened.
>
> That was when the Catholic Church, in particular, gained power over much
> of Europe and actively promoted ignorance and superstitious beliefs over
> knowledge and science. We know the result as the Dark Ages. Witch hunts,
> inquisitions, crusades. Cholera, smallpox, bubonic plague. I really don't
> think we want a repeat of all that. Do you?
>
> > Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
>
> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!!
Control tower, we have a problem...
I can now understand how you guys miss your 'destination' by five
hours!!!!
Wull
July 8th 10, 12:14 AM
Is there anyway that you airplane news groups can cross off
alt.gossip.celebrities. We are sick of all the airplane posts which have
absolutely nothing to do with celebrity gossip. It would certainly be
appreciated.
Thanks
Wull
"The Starmaker" > wrote in message
...
> Wingnut wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> > Wingnut writes:
>> >
>> >> From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
>> >> another for years.
>> >
>> > As hard as it may be to believe, some people are neither for nor
>> > against
>> > each other.
>>
>> True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
>> obvious, indeed blindingly so.
>>
>> Is this a subtle attempt to rewrite history and claim that he's always
>> been your ally, as a means of deflecting uncomfortable questions
>> regarding why he switched sides? After all if he didn't switch sides
>> questions about why he did will look silly rather than calling your
>> character into question, so such a pretense would seem to serve a useful
>> purpose for you.
>>
>> >> For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I
>> >> wrote, so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in
>> >> trying
>> >> to frame me as some kind of moron or incompetent.
>> >
>> > I don't even remember what you wrote
>>
>> Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly
>> just to nettle you?
>>
>> No problem. Used to be you were facing a certain death sentence, but,
>> these days, there are treatment options that can dramatically slow the
>> progression of Alzheimer's.
>>
>> Anyway, here it is again:
>>
>> "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>> would have become quite relevant indeed."
>>
>> >> All the while just making
>> >> himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
>> >> brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars ...
>> >
>> > Even if that were true, I'm not sure why I should care what anyone on
>> > rec.arts.tv thinks about aviation.
>>
>> Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup with
>> a lot of posts on the topic, though.
>>
>> >> ... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...
>> >
>> > OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)
>>
>> I don't know. Why can't we? Why is it that after I posted
>>
>> "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>> the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>> would have become quite relevant indeed."
>>
>> (there it is again!)
>>
>> you started making repeated nasty and sly suggestions about me in public?
>> Insulting my intelligence repeatedly by talking down to me, suggesting
>> that there was something wrong with my thinking, and things like that?
>>
>> It seems you cannot stand to read an opinion that differs from your own
>> without responding with at least a sneering and looking-down-the-nose
>> tone to whomever just posted it. And *that* makes it hard for anyone to
>> get along with you, specifically.
>>
>> The bigger problem is that, while you are entitled to your own opinion,
>> you aren't entitled to your own facts, and your repeated implicit claim
>> that learning curves could veer wildly about rather than being monotonic
>> increasing is simply laughable from a scientific perspective.
>>
>> >> ... one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the
>> >> only remaining question is why.
>> >
>> > The Trilateral Illuminati Freemasons Commission insisted--it was an
>> > essential step in their quest for world domination and mind-control.
>>
>> Based on various references and other data, I compute a greater than 97%
>> chance that this response is a lie intended to conceal a more mundane and
>> sordid explanation of some sort, with a probable secondary purpose of
>> trying to make me look silly.
>>
>> But it was not *I* that brought world domination and Freemasons into the
>> discussion...so who *really* is the silly one?
>>
>> > We are but pawns in the Grand Plan. I know the location of the
>> > keystone,
>> > and I have tickets for the Rose Line.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, and meanwhile I'm the chairman of the shadow government of
>> the United States of America and with a word I could have your hometown
>> nuked to bedrock. :-)
>>
>> >> The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
>> >> switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could.
>> >
>> > And civilization--as we know it--would crumble into dust.
>>
>> Perhaps nothing quote so melodramatic, but if the same happened on a
>> larger scale, involving many "Mxsmanics" that felt entitled not only to
>> their own opinions but to their own facts, we could see a repeat of what
>> happened the *last* time such a thing happened.
>>
>> That was when the Catholic Church, in particular, gained power over much
>> of Europe and actively promoted ignorance and superstitious beliefs over
>> knowledge and science. We know the result as the Dark Ages. Witch hunts,
>> inquisitions, crusades. Cholera, smallpox, bubonic plague. I really don't
>> think we want a repeat of all that. Do you?
>>
>> > Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
>>
>> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
>
>
> I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!!
>
> Control tower, we have a problem...
>
> I can now understand how you guys miss your 'destination' by five
> hours!!!!
The Starmaker
July 8th 10, 12:26 AM
Wull wrote:
>
> Is there anyway that you airplane news groups can cross off
> alt.gossip.celebrities. We are sick of all the airplane posts which have
> absolutely nothing to do with celebrity gossip. It would certainly be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Wull
Celebrities fly airplanes, ...and they die in them.
I was looking for a music CD, found it and wondered why these guys
didn't come out with another CD, found out they all died in a plane
crash.
Lesson is, you don't put celebrities in airplanes, you put
nobodies..nobody cares about..nobodies.
Pilot error is another way of saying you got dummies flying airplanes.
It's a taxicab in the sky..
In otherwords, they need to *start* arresting 'airplane pilots' for
Murder.
Not Doctor error,
not pilot error...
Murder.
The Starmaker
Wull
July 8th 10, 12:30 AM
What you say has some truth to it Star, but isn't one post enough about a
sick pilot and a flying hostess. It seems like that title has been going on
for years and years.
Wull
"The Starmaker" > wrote in message
...
> Wull wrote:
>>
>> Is there anyway that you airplane news groups can cross off
>> alt.gossip.celebrities. We are sick of all the airplane posts which have
>> absolutely nothing to do with celebrity gossip. It would certainly be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Wull
>
> Celebrities fly airplanes, ...and they die in them.
>
> I was looking for a music CD, found it and wondered why these guys
> didn't come out with another CD, found out they all died in a plane
> crash.
>
> Lesson is, you don't put celebrities in airplanes, you put
> nobodies..nobody cares about..nobodies.
>
> Pilot error is another way of saying you got dummies flying airplanes.
>
> It's a taxicab in the sky..
>
> In otherwords, they need to *start* arresting 'airplane pilots' for
> Murder.
>
>
> Not Doctor error,
> not pilot error...
> Murder.
>
>
> The Starmaker
"Wingnut" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.rofl.name/lolcity/
>
> Cute. Why post this here though? Certainly you could have picked a more
> violent flamewar to post it into. :-)
Because it was a cute flamewar :)
Wingnut
July 8th 10, 04:45 AM
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:52:03 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Wingnut writes:
>
>> True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
>> obvious, indeed blindingly so.
>
> Disagreement is not animosity.
It is when one side starts telling the world that the other side is an
idiot, or worse.
>> Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly
>> just to nettle you?
>
> If I read your posts at all, I generally scan them quickly.
Well, there's your mistake then, right there! For each post, you should
either read it thoroughly, for comprehension, or else not post a followup
to it.
>> Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup
>> with a lot of posts on the topic, though.
>
> I just click on the reply button.
Indiscriminately, it seems. Perhaps a Tourette's tic in your right index
finger? I think they have medication for that these days. You might want
to ask your doctor about treatment options.
>> > Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
>>
>> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
>
> Then this conversation serves no further purpose.
Then I shouldn't expect to see any further posts by you.
(Yet, strangely, I find I *do* expect to see some. I wonder why?)
Wingnut
July 8th 10, 04:45 AM
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> Wingnut wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
>>
>> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
>
> I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!!
Speak for yourself (and Mxsmanic). I'm about as sane as they come.
Wingnut
July 8th 10, 04:53 AM
Hatunen wrote:
> Wingnut wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> Wingnut wrote:
>>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>>> Wingnut wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been
>>>>>>on my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at
>>>>>>best and a liar at worst.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet
>>>>>>now suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or
>>>>>>providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a
>>>>>>genuine, spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the
>>>>>>dark side. That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only
>>>>>>goes in the other direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being wrong is being wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was
>>>>wrong. Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which
>>>>of us was right?
>>>
>>> I hate to be trite, but two wrongs don't make a right.
>>
>>So, you're saying BOTH of us are wrong?
>>
>>That's impossible by the Law of the Excluded Middle.
>>
>>I say P and Mxsmanic says ~P, where P is:
>>
>>"Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused
>>the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience
>>would have become quite relevant indeed."
>
> I never disagreed with that.
Yes, you did. That is the bone of contention, and furthermore it is my
position. You attacked me. Therefore, you disagree with that, whether you
admit it or not. There is, after all, no other plausible motive for you
to attack me, given that you do not know me personally.
>>Now, either P or ~P. Either I'm right or Mxsmanic is right. If you claim
>>that I'm wrong, then you claim that Mxsmanic is right, and I am being
>>quite fair in characterizing you as having taken his side in the dispute
>>over P vs. ~P.
>>
>>(Actually, as near as I can tell the dispute is really over the implied
>>statement that her prior flight experience would have been an advantage.
>
> The borader dispute is over that question. But your dispute with me is
> not.
Yet it must be, for that is the bone of contention in this thread.
>>> But in this case I never said Mixie was right.
>>
>>You said I was wrong, which amounts to the same thing. Either P or ~P.
>>You cannot have it both ways.
>
> You're still arguing
Well of *course* I'm still arguing, you keep publicly calling me names!
I'm hardly going to roll over and *agree* with you when you keep doing
*that*!
>>>>It seems you're a fair-weather ally.
>>>
>>> Ally? You seem to think it's a war.
>
>>It became one as soon as Mxsmanic, Dudley, you, and Jim Logajan began
>>making public insinuations about my intelligence and competence.
>
> the only "insuation" I made was that your were wrong
Which amounts to the same thing.
I notice you're just as spelling-challenged as Mxsmanic. Birds of a
feather?
>>I will
>>end when people stop making such insinuations and either let the topic
>>drop entirely or capitulate, say by apologizing and publicly retracting
>>their insinuations about me.
>
> I'm not insuatuing at all. You're was whiney complainer
Ah, screw this. Reason and intelligent discourse clearly are wasted on
you.
Go **** yourself, Hatunen.
There, like that? Seems more your kind of discourse. :-)
>>> That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but it
>>> wasn't.
>>
>>By attacking my attack on "Mixie" you are defending "Mixie".
>
> Interesting logic. In fact, I have no interest in being on anyone's
> side.
This statement is even less supported by the evidence; your repeated
arguments with Mxsmanic demonstrate otherwise.
Regardless, the fact is that someone who appears to fight for one side
and then suddenly shoots one of that side's other soldiers in the back
without apparent provocation is one of three things: a mole, a turncoat,
or a lunatic.
Take your pick.
>>What part of
>>the Law of the Excluded Middle (or, for that matter, of "the enemy of my
>>enemy is my friend") don't you understand?
>>
>>(Nothing after that point was worthy of a response. I counted a few bits
>>of namecalling directed at me and a repetition of something already
>>addressed, and zero evidence or reasoned arguments in support of
>>Mxsmanic's position ~P.)
>
> I've already plonked Mixe so I don't have to read his misaimed comments
> and attempts to change the subject when he doesn't like a response. I
> see no reason not to do the same for you
Go ahead. I think both of us would be the happier for it, whichever of
mole, turncoat, or lunatic you might be.
> I can't help wondering how old you are, though.
Sixty-three, and you?
peachyashiepassion
July 8th 10, 05:01 AM
Wingnut wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Wingnut wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
>>> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
>> I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!!
>
> Speak for yourself (and Mxsmanic). I'm about as sane as they come.
And you know this because of your extensive background in mental health?
Jim Logajan
July 8th 10, 05:04 AM
Wingnut > wrote:
> I'm about as sane as they come.
The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my.
Anyway, I'm the standard for sanity. Self-certified from the most
authoritative authority I know.
Hatunen
July 8th 10, 06:08 AM
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan
> wrote:
>Wingnut > wrote:
>> I'm about as sane as they come.
>
>The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my.
There ain't no sanity clause.
(With thanx to Chico.)
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Anim8rFSK
July 8th 10, 06:45 AM
In article >,
peachyashiepassion > wrote:
> Wingnut wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Wingnut wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>>> Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
> >>> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
> >> I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!!
> >
> > Speak for yourself (and Mxsmanic). I'm about as sane as they come.
>
>
> And you know this because of your extensive background in mental health?
No.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Wingnut
July 9th 10, 07:03 AM
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
>>Wingnut > wrote:
>>> I'm about as sane as they come.
>>
>>The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my.
>
> There ain't no sanity clause.
Nonetheless, I'm about as sane as they come.
Jim Logajan
July 9th 10, 07:57 AM
Wingnut > wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Wingnut > wrote:
>>>> I'm about as sane as they come.
>>>
>>>The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my.
>>
>> There ain't no sanity clause.
>
> Nonetheless, I'm about as sane as they come.
And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
The Starmaker
July 9th 10, 06:25 PM
Wingnut wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Wingnut wrote:
> >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> > Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
> >>
> >> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
> >
> > I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!!
>
> Speak for yourself (and Mxsmanic). I'm about as sane as they come.
You have to be CRAZY to fly an airplane!
I was watching this show on TV called "The Bachelor"...
he was a pilot..flies airplanes...
he's a commercial pilot..
he has a 'fear of heights'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTOpHMRvzmM
what other nutz do you have up there flying?
He picks up girls on...TV Shows!
He already broke up with her...
http://www.filmyfair.com/celebrities/vienna-girardi-and-jake-pavelka-break-up/
The Starmaker
Pilot error? What does that mean?? I'll tell you what it means, it means
you got crazy people flying airplanes. Fasten your seatbelts..the pilot probably has a fear of
heights..
The Starmaker
July 9th 10, 06:44 PM
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Wingnut wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Wingnut wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> > >> > Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?
> > >>
> > >> No, not really. Certainly not with you.
> > >
> > > I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!!
> >
> > Speak for yourself (and Mxsmanic). I'm about as sane as they come.
>
> You have to be CRAZY to fly an airplane!
>
> I was watching this show on TV called "The Bachelor"...
> he was a pilot..flies airplanes...
> he's a commercial pilot..
>
> he has a 'fear of heights'.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTOpHMRvzmM
>
> what other nutz do you have up there flying?
>
> He picks up girls on...TV Shows!
>
> He already broke up with her...
> http://www.filmyfair.com/celebrities/vienna-girardi-and-jake-pavelka-break-up/
>
> The Starmaker
>
> Pilot error? What does that mean?? I'll tell you what it means, it means
> you got crazy people flying airplanes. Fasten your seatbelts..the pilot probably has a fear of
> heights..
I'm sorry..I appologize..I just don't get it..I just don't understand...
How does one get a license to fly a commercial plane who throws up if he's 2 inches above the ground?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTOpHMRvzmM
Hatunen
July 9th 10, 06:47 PM
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:57:09 -0500, Jim Logajan
> wrote:
>Wingnut > wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wingnut > wrote:
>>>>> I'm about as sane as they come.
>>>>
>>>>The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my.
>>>
>>> There ain't no sanity clause.
>>
>> Nonetheless, I'm about as sane as they come.
>
>And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
That was a bit of a woosh! wasn't it. Maybe he's too young to
know about Chico.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Mxsmanic
July 10th 10, 07:10 AM
The Starmaker writes:
> You have to be CRAZY to fly an airplane!
>
> I was watching this show on TV called "The Bachelor"...
> he was a pilot..flies airplanes...
> he's a commercial pilot..
>
> he has a 'fear of heights'.
Flying in an airplane does not trigger a fear of heights, and a fear of
heights is just as common among pilots as it is in the general population. A
pilot might feel anxious standing at the top of the stairs while getting on or
off his airplane, but he won't feel that way in the cockpit. The same is true
for passengers with a fear of heights.
The notion that a fear of heights can interfere with the ability to work as a
pilot is a misconception. A fear of heights is usually a translated fear of
falling, and you cannot fall when you are securely inside an airplane.
Mxsmanic
July 10th 10, 07:12 AM
The Starmaker writes:
> I'm sorry..I appologize..I just don't get it..I just don't
> understand... How does one get a license to fly a commercial
> plane who throws up if he's 2 inches above the ground?
A fear of heights doesn't influence piloting. Motion sickness can be overcome
by gradual experience.
A fear of heights is no less common among pilots than it is in the general
population. Motion sickness is also a problem for some pilots during their
pilot training, but they get over it.
Wingnut
July 10th 10, 09:18 AM
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:57:09 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
> Wingnut > wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wingnut > wrote:
>>>>> I'm about as sane as they come.
>>>>
>>>>The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my.
>>>
>>> There ain't no sanity clause.
>>
>> Nonetheless, I'm about as sane as they come.
>
> And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
If that's intended to suggest that I'm as nutty as that book's
protagonist, well I hate to tell you this but you're wrong. Sorry. :-)
The Starmaker
July 10th 10, 08:47 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The Starmaker writes:
>
> > You have to be CRAZY to fly an airplane!
> >
> > I was watching this show on TV called "The Bachelor"...
> > he was a pilot..flies airplanes...
> > he's a commercial pilot..
> >
> > he has a 'fear of heights'.
>
> Flying in an airplane does not trigger a fear of heights, and a fear of
> heights is just as common among pilots as it is in the general population. A
> pilot might feel anxious standing at the top of the stairs while getting on or
> off his airplane, but he won't feel that way in the cockpit. The same is true
> for passengers with a fear of heights.
>
> The notion that a fear of heights can interfere with the ability to work as a
> pilot is a misconception. A fear of heights is usually a translated fear of
> falling, and you cannot fall when you are securely inside an airplane.
When I'm 10,000 feet in the air, ....I get this feeling of ...falling.
The Starmaker
July 10th 10, 08:50 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The Starmaker writes:
>
> > I'm sorry..I appologize..I just don't get it..I just don't
> > understand... How does one get a license to fly a commercial
> > plane who throws up if he's 2 inches above the ground?
>
> A fear of heights doesn't influence piloting. Motion sickness can be overcome
> by gradual experience.
>
> A fear of heights is no less common among pilots than it is in the general
> population. Motion sickness is also a problem for some pilots during their
> pilot training, but they get over it.
Do they get 'dizzy spells' too?
Mxsmanic
July 10th 10, 11:37 PM
The Starmaker writes:
> Do they get 'dizzy spells' too?
Dizzy spells are much more likely to be pathological in both pilots and
non-pilots.
The Starmaker
July 11th 10, 01:07 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The Starmaker writes:
>
> > You have to be CRAZY to fly an airplane!
> >
> > I was watching this show on TV called "The Bachelor"...
> > he was a pilot..flies airplanes...
> > he's a commercial pilot..
> >
> > he has a 'fear of heights'.
>
> Flying in an airplane does not trigger a fear of heights, and a fear of
> heights is just as common among pilots as it is in the general population. A
> pilot might feel anxious standing at the top of the stairs while getting on or
> off his airplane, but he won't feel that way in the cockpit. The same is true
> for passengers with a fear of heights.
>
> The notion that a fear of heights can interfere with the ability to work as a
> pilot is a misconception. A fear of heights is usually a translated fear of
> falling, and you cannot fall when you are securely inside an airplane.
Come onnn already, ...you can feel 'fear of falling' in a "secure place?" like "inside an airplane??"
(who feels secure inside an airplane?)
You can feel 'fear of falling' laying on a floor!
Do you know where the 'fear of falling' comes from?
The Starmaker
July 11th 10, 01:32 AM
Wingnut wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:57:09 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> > Wingnut > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Wingnut > wrote:
> >>>>> I'm about as sane as they come.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my.
> >>>
> >>> There ain't no sanity clause.
> >>
> >> Nonetheless, I'm about as sane as they come.
> >
> > And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
>
> If that's intended to suggest that I'm as nutty as that book's
> protagonist, well I hate to tell you this but you're wrong. Sorry. :-)
What does 'Wingnut' stand for?
On Jul 10, 1:10*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> you cannot fall when you are securely inside an airplane.
WRONG.
Mxsmanic
July 11th 10, 12:41 PM
The Starmaker writes:
> Come onnn already, ...you can feel 'fear of falling' in a "secure
> place?" like "inside an airplane??"
A fear of falling usually presents when a person is confronted with railings,
open edges, etc.--anything that might conceivably permit him to fall. Open
glass walls or floors, by extension, can trigger the fear also. But sitting in
a seat with seat belt attached and looking out a small window that one can
obviously not fit through isn't likely to trigger a fear of falling or
heights.
> (who feels secure inside an airplane?)
Pilots and experienced passengers.
> You can feel 'fear of falling' laying on a floor!
That would be very unusual.
> Do you know where the 'fear of falling' comes from?
A fear of falling is wired in. All normal people have some degree of fear of
falling. Even babies automatically fear falling and heights. Only when it
becomes very extreme is it considered pathological and a phobia.
Fear of falling/heights can be aggravated by vestibular problems that affect
the ability to balance for walking and standing. Older people with such
problems often develop a strong fear of heights and falling (and justifiably
so, to some extent). Both fears tend to get worse with age in most people.
Women are more often affected than men.
On Jul 11, 6:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> But sitting in
> a seat with seat belt attached and looking out a small window that one can
> obviously not fit through isn't likely to trigger a fear of falling or
> heights.
Well of course, you sit in front of a monitor playing MSFS, you are
not going to get the fear of falling
GET IN A REAL PLANE on takeoff or before landing on a turbulent day
and the above statement is as WRONG as you usually are.
george
July 11th 10, 09:44 PM
On Jul 12, 2:43*am, " > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 6:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > But sitting in
> > a seat with seat belt attached and looking out a small window that one can
> > obviously not fit through isn't likely to trigger a fear of falling or
> > heights.
>
> Well of course, you sit in front of a monitor playing MSFS, you are
> not going to get the fear of falling
>
> GET IN A REAL PLANE on takeoff or before landing on a turbulent day
> and the above statement is as WRONG as you usually are.
Google rough-landings-at-nz-s-windies.aspx..
An aerodrome I used to fly from :-)
Mixedups going to -really- fear flying after this
On Jul 11, 3:44*pm, george > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2:43*am, " > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 6:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > But sitting in
> > > a seat with seat belt attached and looking out a small window that one can
> > > obviously not fit through isn't likely to trigger a fear of falling or
> > > heights.
>
> > Well of course, you sit in front of a monitor playing MSFS, you are
> > not going to get the fear of falling
>
> > GET IN A REAL PLANE on takeoff or before landing on a turbulent day
> > and the above statement is as WRONG as you usually are.
>
> Google *rough-landings-at-nz-s-windies.aspx..
> An aerodrome I used to fly from :-)
> Mixedups going to -really- fear flying after this
Crap, got me fear of falling just watching the video!
http://www.livevideo.com/video/722EE2150177488AA67B682524BA59C2/rough-landings-at-nz-s-windies.aspx
george
July 12th 10, 04:24 AM
On Jul 12, 2:26*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 3:44*pm, george > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 2:43*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 6:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > > But sitting in
> > > > a seat with seat belt attached and looking out a small window that one can
> > > > obviously not fit through isn't likely to trigger a fear of falling or
> > > > heights.
>
> > > Well of course, you sit in front of a monitor playing MSFS, you are
> > > not going to get the fear of falling
>
> > > GET IN A REAL PLANE on takeoff or before landing on a turbulent day
> > > and the above statement is as WRONG as you usually are.
>
> > Google *rough-landings-at-nz-s-windies.aspx..
> > An aerodrome I used to fly from :-)
> > Mixedups going to -really- fear flying after this
>
> Crap, got me fear of falling just watching the video!
>
> http://www.livevideo.com/video/722EE2150177488AA67B682524BA59C2/rough...
That's the one :-)
Dave Doe
July 12th 10, 05:15 AM
In article <b7ba4c5d-ab1d-45e5-9b2d-
>, says...
>
> On Jul 11, 3:44*pm, george > wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 2:43*am, " > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 11, 6:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> > > > But sitting in
> > > > a seat with seat belt attached and looking out a small window that one can
> > > > obviously not fit through isn't likely to trigger a fear of falling or
> > > > heights.
> >
> > > Well of course, you sit in front of a monitor playing MSFS, you are
> > > not going to get the fear of falling
> >
> > > GET IN A REAL PLANE on takeoff or before landing on a turbulent day
> > > and the above statement is as WRONG as you usually are.
> >
> > Google *rough-landings-at-nz-s-windies.aspx..
> > An aerodrome I used to fly from :-)
> > Mixedups going to -really- fear flying after this
>
> Crap, got me fear of falling just watching the video!
>
> http://www.livevideo.com/video/722EE2150177488AA67B682524BA59C2/rough-landings-at-nz-s-windies.aspx
This one's gotta hurt! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOAkZrC87Mc
--
Duncan.
The Starmaker
July 12th 10, 07:02 PM
george wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2:26 pm, " > wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 3:44 pm, george > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 12, 2:43 am, " > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 11, 6:41 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> > > > > But sitting in
> > > > > a seat with seat belt attached and looking out a small window that one can
> > > > > obviously not fit through isn't likely to trigger a fear of falling or
> > > > > heights.
> >
> > > > Well of course, you sit in front of a monitor playing MSFS, you are
> > > > not going to get the fear of falling
> >
> > > > GET IN A REAL PLANE on takeoff or before landing on a turbulent day
> > > > and the above statement is as WRONG as you usually are.
> >
> > > Google rough-landings-at-nz-s-windies.aspx..
> > > An aerodrome I used to fly from :-)
> > > Mixedups going to -really- fear flying after this
> >
> > Crap, got me fear of falling just watching the video!
> >
> > http://www.livevideo.com/video/722EE2150177488AA67B682524BA59C2/rough...
>
> That's the one :-)
take this test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmDhRvvs5Xw&feature=related
Wingnut
July 16th 10, 03:37 PM
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:32:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> Wingnut wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:57:09 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>> > Wingnut > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Wingnut > wrote:
>> >>>>> I'm about as sane as they come.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my.
>> >>>
>> >>> There ain't no sanity clause.
>> >>
>> >> Nonetheless, I'm about as sane as they come.
>> >
>> > And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
>>
>> If that's intended to suggest that I'm as nutty as that book's
>> protagonist, well I hate to tell you this but you're wrong. Sorry. :-)
>
> What does 'Wingnut' stand for?
It's not an acronym; it doesn't "stand for" anything.
It's one of these:
http://unrepentantoldhippie.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wingnut-
thumb-200x200.jpg
Wingnut
July 16th 10, 03:38 PM
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:41:41 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> The Starmaker writes:
>
>> Come onnn already, ...you can feel 'fear of falling' in a "secure
>> place?" like "inside an airplane??"
>
> A fear of falling usually presents when a person is confronted with
> railings, open edges, etc.--anything that might conceivably permit him
> to fall.
I got a new idea for a gory horror movie! Complete with tagline!
Troll vs. Troll ... whoever wins, we lose.
The Starmaker
July 16th 10, 07:41 PM
Wingnut wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:41:41 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > The Starmaker writes:
> >
> >> Come onnn already, ...you can feel 'fear of falling' in a "secure
> >> place?" like "inside an airplane??"
> >
> > A fear of falling usually presents when a person is confronted with
> > railings, open edges, etc.--anything that might conceivably permit him
> > to fall.
>
> I got a new idea for a gory horror movie! Complete with tagline!
>
> Troll vs. Troll ... whoever wins, we lose.
Just in case nobody knows...people have a fear of falling because
once everyone lived on trees like monkies, if you fall asleep on a tree, ....
I thought 'wingnut' mean, somebody who is 'nutz' about...wings.
Why give yourself a handle with the word "nut" in it? What else is people
suppose to think?
Have you've ever seen a ...UFO?
The Starmaker
I don't get a chance to look 'up' all the time, but you guys
are 'up there'...you should've seen sometin by now...
george
July 16th 10, 09:51 PM
On Jul 17, 6:41*am, The Starmaker > wrote:
> Have you've ever seen a ...UFO?
>
Not the question to ask any pilot...
How many unidentified flying objects do we see in the circuit..
Hey, look at the Taylorcraft.
Nope that's a J1.
Rubbish, its a Colt..
Nope, its an unidentified flying object
The Starmaker
July 16th 10, 10:46 PM
george wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 6:41 am, The Starmaker > wrote:
>
> > Have you've ever seen a ...UFO?
> >
>
> Not the question to ask any pilot...
I 'question' the "unquestionable"..
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the
unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
Wingnut
July 17th 10, 04:04 AM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:41:54 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> Wingnut wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:41:41 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> > The Starmaker writes:
>> >
>> >> Come onnn already, ...you can feel 'fear of falling' in a "secure
>> >> place?" like "inside an airplane??"
>> >
>> > A fear of falling usually presents when a person is confronted with
>> > railings, open edges, etc.--anything that might conceivably permit
>> > him to fall.
>>
>> I got a new idea for a gory horror movie! Complete with tagline!
>>
>> Troll vs. Troll ... whoever wins, we lose.
>
> Just in case nobody knows...people have a fear of falling because once
> everyone lived on trees like monkies, if you fall asleep on a tree, ....
>
>
> I thought 'wingnut' mean, somebody who is 'nutz' about...wings.
Nope!
> Why give yourself a handle with the word "nut" in it? What else is
> people suppose to think?
Little shiny fasteners like in that link I posted.
> Have you've ever seen a ...UFO?
A few times. Close inspection usually revealed them to be hot air
balloons or airplanes of fairly mundane kinds, though once it was an
actual jet fighter overflying the area for some reason. I am fairly sure
the remaining unidentified ones were also fairly mundane.
Wingnut
July 17th 10, 04:05 AM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:46:39 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to
> think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the
> unchallengeable.
Er, WTF? It looks like "The Starmaker" just said something that actually
makes sense.
Perhaps he should alert his internet provider that somebody's hijacked
his account.
The Starmaker
July 17th 10, 09:17 PM
Wingnut wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:41:54 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Wingnut wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:41:41 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>
> >> > The Starmaker writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Come onnn already, ...you can feel 'fear of falling' in a "secure
> >> >> place?" like "inside an airplane??"
> >> >
> >> > A fear of falling usually presents when a person is confronted with
> >> > railings, open edges, etc.--anything that might conceivably permit
> >> > him to fall.
> >>
> >> I got a new idea for a gory horror movie! Complete with tagline!
> >>
> >> Troll vs. Troll ... whoever wins, we lose.
> >
> > Just in case nobody knows...people have a fear of falling because once
> > everyone lived on trees like monkies, if you fall asleep on a tree, ....
> >
> >
> > I thought 'wingnut' mean, somebody who is 'nutz' about...wings.
>
> Nope!
>
> > Why give yourself a handle with the word "nut" in it? What else is
> > people suppose to think?
>
> Little shiny fasteners like in that link I posted.
You tell any girl you're a 'wingnut', she woun't be thinking of "Little shiny fasteners"...
>
> > Have you've ever seen a ...UFO?
>
> A few times. Close inspection usually revealed them to be hot air
> balloons or airplanes of fairly mundane kinds, though once it was an
> actual jet fighter overflying the area for some reason. I am fairly sure
> the remaining unidentified ones were also fairly mundane.
By UFO, I meant...a Flying Saucer.
Have you've ever seen a flying saucer?
A UFO is a flying saucer.
If you do a Google image search for UFO...you get
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=ufo&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
flying saucers.
Not balloons, not airplanes, but flying saucers.
You're up in the air more than anybody else, don't tell me you've never seen a 'flying saucers'!
http://www.google.com/images?q=ufo&hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&ndsp=20&imgtype=i_similar&sa=X&ei=Rw9CTMrnLoK-sQOTprSaDA&ct=img-sim-l&oi=image_sil&resnum=1&tbnid=6EfRNsSdpddZOM:
Don't tell me a wingnut never seen a flying saucer.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
July 17th 10, 09:38 PM
Wingnut wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:46:39 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to
> > think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the
> > unchallengeable.
>
> Er, WTF? It looks like "The Starmaker" just said something that actually
> makes sense.
>
> Perhaps he should alert his internet provider that somebody's hijacked
> his account.
Hijacked? Do you have fears somebody is going to highjack your plane? Is that why you
lock your doors??
I think the interesting Twilight Zones are the ones that take place in a plane...
Nightmare At 20,000 Feet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7yJl2mUN2U
There seems to be 'a lot' of "Twilight Zones" TV episodes that involved...airplanes.
That's strange...
In fact, my favorite TZ all involved...flying machines.
You got the guy goes up in the air and
comes back in another Parallel Universe..
and the two suns with people waiting for a flying machine
to take them home...and the flying machine that crashes
with twin crew members..all one hour TZ shows..
and what about all those airplane crashing movies and TV shows?
Did you ever have sex with the airline stewardess?
On the plane? The bathroom, the cockpit??..
The Starmaker
Blue[_2_]
July 18th 10, 05:02 AM
On Jun 16, 9:19*am, "Clarence do we have clearance?"
> wrote:
> Maybe he shouldn't have had the fish. *Thank goodness Karen Black was
> working the flight!
>
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/flight-attendant-helps-pil...
> Flight attendant helps pilot land plane
> June 15, 2010
>
> A flight attendant who has a pilot's license replaced an ill first officer
> during a landing at O'Hare International Airport, officials said today.
>
> The co-pilot of an American Airlines plane that departed San Francisco on
> Monday fell sick en route to Chicago, said American spokeswoman Mary
> Frances Fagan.
>
> "He was unable to continue his duties and he moved to the passenger cabin,"
> Fagan said, adding that the flight's captain checked to see whether any
> off-duty airline pilots were on board the flight.
>
> A female flight attendant advised the captain that she is a commercial
> pilot and the captain asked her to sit in the right-hand seat in the
> cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> "The flight attendant became the first officer on landing," she said. "The
> cockpit crew did an outstanding job handling the situation."
>
> The flight attendant helped the captain by reading off check list of
> procedures and she handled other tasks, in addition to providing a second
> set of eyes in the cockpit, Fagan said.
>
> The plane, a Boeing 767 with 225 passengers and seven crew members on
> board, arrived at O'Hare at 4:24 p.m. Monday. The landing was normal,
> officials said.
>
> The condition of the ill first officer was not serious, officials said. He
> was met on the ground at O'Hare by paramedics and transported to a local
> hospital, where he was treated and released.
>
> The first officer was based in Chicago. He was resting on Tuesday,
> officials said.
How 'bout them emergency brakes!
Ala
July 18th 10, 02:08 PM
"The Starmaker" > wrote in message
...
>
> There seems to be 'a lot' of "Twilight Zones" TV episodes that
> involved...airplanes.
>
>
> That's strange...
>
>
> In fact, my favorite TZ all involved...flying machines.
>
> You got the guy goes up in the air and
> comes back in another Parallel Universe..
> and the two suns with people waiting for a flying machine
> to take them home...and the flying machine that crashes
> with twin crew members..all one hour TZ shows..
>
> and what about all those airplane crashing movies and TV shows?
>
> Did you ever have sex with the airline stewardess?
>
probably just watched a mammal cousin do it
Wingnut
July 19th 10, 06:18 AM
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:38:59 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> Wingnut wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:46:39 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
>> > the unchallengeable.
>>
>> Er, WTF? It looks like "The Starmaker" just said something that
>> actually makes sense.
>>
>> Perhaps he should alert his internet provider that somebody's hijacked
>> his account.
>
>
> Hijacked? Do you have fears somebody is going to highjack your plane? Is
> that why you lock your doors??
Starmaker is either nutso, on something, or intentionally trolling.
> I think the interesting Twilight Zones are the ones that take place in a
> plane...
>
> Nightmare At 20,000 Feet
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7yJl2mUN2U
>
>
> There seems to be 'a lot' of "Twilight Zones" TV episodes that
> involved...airplanes.
>
>
> That's strange...
>
>
> In fact, my favorite TZ all involved...flying machines.
Since you're evidently obsessed with the subject, that's hardly
surprising.
And before I forget to mention it, every one of your posts is an insult
to the memory of Olaf Stapledon. You owe the universe an apology, troll.
> You got the guy goes up in the air and comes back in another Parallel
> Universe.. and the two suns with people waiting for a flying machine to
> take them home...and the flying machine that crashes with twin crew
> members..all one hour TZ shows..
>
> and what about all those airplane crashing movies and TV shows?
Planes in jeopardy make for good drama. Confined space, no escape, lots
of helpless people, etc.
> Did you ever have sex with the airline stewardess?
Yes.
> On the plane?
Of course.
> The bathroom, the cockpit??..
Bathroom was interesting, both our backs against walls it was so cramped.
Cleanup was easy. Cockpit, no, they won't let random people in the
cockpits since 9/11.
Wingnut
July 19th 10, 06:18 AM
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 09:08:57 -0400, Ala wrote:
> "The Starmaker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Did you ever have sex with the airline stewardess?
>>
>>
>
> probably just watched a mammal cousin do it
Nope. Not my kink.
Wingnut
July 19th 10, 06:21 AM
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:17:23 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> By UFO, I meant...a Flying Saucer.
>
> Have you've ever seen a flying saucer?
Sure. Some company in the Netherlands is experimenting with building one.
Basically a tailless helicopter I think.
http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2007/08/whats-nicer-tha/
> A UFO is a flying saucer.
Nah, if you know it's a flying saucer it's not unidentified!
> You're up in the air more than anybody else, don't tell me you've never
> seen a 'flying saucers'!
Actually, I fly only a few times a year, mostly business class.
> Don't tell me a wingnut never seen a flying saucer.
Of course I have. Besides the one being built in Europe I've seen them in
movies. I've seen Spielberg's Close Encounters. Everybody has, just
about. Not to mention Star Wars. The Millennium Falcon is pretty clearly
a good approximation to a flying saucer.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.