On the 'apron'?

[Mike Rhodes]

On the 'apron'?

Would the ATC specialist understand if I rejected his 'apron' and used
the ramp instead? Would the FAA administrator forcibly correct me
during certificate or ratings exams?

The use of the word 'apron' is so odd as to consider it forcibly
queer. Pointedly, they are trying to cut off our balls.

Therefore I must react back, and burn their 'apron', and anyone in the
way. Then go looking for airline pilots also looking to burn more
queers. Apparently (and not so surprisingly) there are at least a few
of those around and willing to say so.

The degree to which the queer's burning is deserved is
_off_the_scale_. And that you need not be told, for the attacks on
this news group is directly attributable to vicious ball-less queers.

Demons they are, grandiose worthless nincompoops, absolute pests!
'Superheroes' for parasites, who have destroyed their own humanity by
their own choice. And, being so filled with satanic envy and hate,
steal and destroy any part of humanity that is admirable wherever it
may be found.

Stay free! Wrap them up in their own ridiculous apron then burn it!
Burn the sodomistic hell out of it!
--
Michael

[Steven P. McNicoll[_3_]]

Mike Rhodes wrote:
>
> On the 'apron'?
>
> Would the ATC specialist understand if I rejected his 'apron' and used
> the ramp instead?
>

Yes.

>
> Would the FAA administrator forcibly correct me
> during certificate or ratings exams?
>

No.

>
> The use of the word 'apron' is so odd as to consider it forcibly
> queer.
>

Not at all.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
, Mike Rhodes says...
>
> On the 'apron'?
>
> Would the ATC specialist understand if I rejected his 'apron' and used
> the ramp instead? Would the FAA administrator forcibly correct me
> during certificate or ratings exams?
>
> The use of the word 'apron' is so odd as to consider it forcibly
> queer. Pointedly, they are trying to cut off our balls.
>
> Therefore I must react back, and burn their 'apron', and anyone in the
> way. Then go looking for airline pilots also looking to burn more
> queers. Apparently (and not so surprisingly) there are at least a few
> of those around and willing to say so.
>
> The degree to which the queer's burning is deserved is
> _off_the_scale_. And that you need not be told, for the attacks on
> this news group is directly attributable to vicious ball-less queers.
>
> Demons they are, grandiose worthless nincompoops, absolute pests!
> 'Superheroes' for parasites, who have destroyed their own humanity by
> their own choice. And, being so filled with satanic envy and hate,
> steal and destroy any part of humanity that is admirable wherever it
> may be found.
>
> Stay free! Wrap them up in their own ridiculous apron then burn it!
> Burn the sodomistic hell out of it!

We don't *all* live in America mate. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_ramp

--
Duncan.

[Mike Rhodes]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:38:21 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>>
>> The use of the word 'apron' is so odd as to consider it forcibly
>> queer.
>>
>
>Not at all.

Obviously it is. The word 'apron' has a singular public usage which
can only be transferred elsewhere by force; by the 'administrator.'
It certainly would not have been sought out and excepted by those who
normally use the ramp.

An apron, in its typical usage, does not in any way resemble that of a
ramp -- except by some vicious queer joke (preparing flesh for
cooking, or falling to the floor; typically by females in the home or
queers elsewhere). And only the very odd and evil would think it
either appropriate, or 'funny'. (All stated by me without ANY
exaggeration.)

Likewise is the use of 'zulu' time. I will never use Z for time,
(except for the time of their burning that is coming!) It is another
word for 'coordinated universal time', which is actually 'manipulated
emperialistic time'. It is manipulated specifically for the sake of
Zulus, and also those who subversivally hide behind those troublesome
worthless pathetic pests, including their queers who inflict those
@#$% on productive, peaceful societies. (All stated by me without ANY
exaggeration.)

Use 'zinc' for z in the phonetic alphabet, or something else more
universally civil then the damned 'zulu'.
--
Michael

[Mike Rhodes]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:48:50 +1200, Dave Doe > wrote:

>> Burn the sodomistic hell out of it!
>
>We don't *all* live in America mate. :)

Yet you *all* do socially and financially rape the hell out it. Where
*all* of you refers to the Commonwealth.

And, given the option, an American would rather shoot you, Aussie,
before calling you 'mate'. That you know, and you don't care. You
think it a victory when you get away with such an address without
bullet returned between your eyes.

That is not a healthy relationship.
For that you will not be; and on zulu time with the rest.
--
Michael

[Steven P. McNicoll[_3_]]

Mike Rhodes wrote:
>
> Obviously it is.
>

Not at all.

>
> The word 'apron' has a singular public usage which
> can only be transferred elsewhere by force; by the 'administrator.'
> It certainly would not have been sought out and excepted by those who
> normally use the ramp.
>
> An apron, in its typical usage, does not in any way resemble that of a
> ramp -- except by some vicious queer joke (preparing flesh for
> cooking, or falling to the floor; typically by females in the home or
> queers elsewhere). And only the very odd and evil would think it
> either appropriate, or 'funny'. (All stated by me without ANY
> exaggeration.)
>
> Likewise is the use of 'zulu' time. I will never use Z for time,
> (except for the time of their burning that is coming!) It is another
> word for 'coordinated universal time', which is actually 'manipulated
> emperialistic time'. It is manipulated specifically for the sake of
> Zulus, and also those who subversivally hide behind those troublesome
> worthless pathetic pests, including their queers who inflict those
> @#$% on productive, peaceful societies. (All stated by me without ANY
> exaggeration.)
>
> Use 'zinc' for z in the phonetic alphabet, or something else more
> universally civil then the damned 'zulu'.
>

You are mistaken.

[Mike Rhodes]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:41:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>>
>
>You are mistaken.

That's it? No follow-up discussion? That is both arrogant and
cowardly, probably because you have an indefensible position. Also,
do you wish to infer such an attitude on pilots generally? I suspect
so.
--
Michael

[Mike Rhodes]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:06:58 -0500, Mike Rhodes
> wrote:

>On the 'apron'?
.... preparing 'flesh for cooking, or falling to the floor'?
Go to hell.

'Air traffic control specialist' ?
Go to hell.

'Positive control' meaning control of all air traffic by ATC?
Go to hell.

'The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for ...
(blah, blah, blah)' Of course. But always stated in the context of
an accusation, slapping the pilot around.
Go to hell.

The concepts are mostly self-evident, if we have any sense. For those
that don't then do not burden the rest of us with marginal losses.
Then we're all spinning our wheels uselessly. But the regs are hardly
so evident, 'adinistrator', and tend to brow beat us as if in an
attempt to mentally abuse us into safety. They are bitchy (mothering
inappropriately, insecurely). I detect the want for absolute control.
(Ha.) It is not so well deserved, nor reasonably practical. Grow up.
Let us all grow up.
--
Michael

p.s. The Air France flight appears to be the craziest bit of pilot
error one could imagine. But could it have been prevented with a
suitable warning of 'FROZEN PITOT TUBE!' blaring over the noise of the
other instruments? Other then pitch, wasn't engine power the only
thing they were lacking? Do Airbus auto-throttles automatically
release to idle? If so then it's a big one the pilots should've been
aware of. The instruments (altimeter) may have 'tumbled', but the
aircraft had not, and a reason why they did not take action.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_3_]]

Mike Rhodes wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:41:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> You are mistaken.
>
> That's it? No follow-up discussion? That is both arrogant and
> cowardly, probably because you have an indefensible position. Also,
> do you wish to infer such an attitude on pilots generally? I suspect
> so.
>

Your previous messages indicate you lack the intelligence to understand
further discussion of thim matter.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Jun 27, 1:55*pm, Mike Rhodes > wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:48:50 +1200, Dave Doe > wrote:
> >> Burn the sodomistic hell out of it!
>
> >We don't *all* live in America mate. :)
>
> Yet you *all* do socially and financially rape the hell out it. *Where
> *all* of you refers to the Commonwealth.
>
> And, given the option, an American would rather shoot you, Aussie,
> before calling you 'mate'. *That you know, and you don't care. *You
> think it a victory when you get away with such an address without
> bullet returned between your eyes.
>
> That is not a healthy relationship.
> For that you will not be; and on zulu time with the rest.
> --
> Michael

Nah, America bends over, spreads it muffin top ass cheeks wide with
both hands and screams "RAPE??!??...pretty please?" to all and sundry.