Unusual Distractions

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

Years back I was doing FAR 91 corporate flying with a Merlin IIB out
of SNA. I had a trip for my boss down to his house in Cabo San Lucas.
There was one of many charity fishing tournaments happening that he
participated in, and one of the guys asked him if he could add some
color to this particular tournament. My boss, being the bon vivant he
was, and the guy requesting the favor, who was also a good friend of
mine, were of like minds. However, they didn't fill me in on who was
headed down to the Cape on this trip.
So, being the cool dude and proficient pilot, I had everything ready
to go, flight plan filed, cater trays up, bar replenished, standing by
at the airport at 0600. The stretch limo pulls up at about 0700 and my
friend Doc Jerry gets out, followed by six lovely ladies.
Introductions are made and we get loaded up and head south. I'm just
getting leveled off at FL 270, getting ther handoff to Mexican ATC
when one of the lovlies comes up and asks if she can sit in the right
seat. Being a gentleman, I acquiese. Problem is, she is wearing a
string bikini. Wheeeeeew. I glanced back to see Doc Jerry with a big
****eating grin on his face and for the next couple of hours, I am
dazzled, blinded and bewildered (not to mention lustful thoughts)
while the Rams cheerleaders exchange places in the right seat all the
way to San Jose Del Cabo, all in string bikinis and giving me million
dollar smiles.
THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
Ol Shy & Bashful

[[email protected]]

On Jul 8, 5:32 pm, Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> Years back I was doing FAR 91 corporate flying with a Merlin IIB out
> of SNA. I had a trip for my boss down to his house in Cabo San Lucas.
> There was one of many charity fishing tournaments happening that he
> participated in, and one of the guys asked him if he could add some
> color to this particular tournament. My boss, being the bon vivant he
> was, and the guy requesting the favor, who was also a good friend of
> mine, were of like minds. However, they didn't fill me in on who was
> headed down to the Cape on this trip.
> So, being the cool dude and proficient pilot, I had everything ready
> to go, flight plan filed, cater trays up, bar replenished, standing by
> at the airport at 0600. The stretch limo pulls up at about 0700 and my
> friend Doc Jerry gets out, followed by six lovely ladies.
> Introductions are made and we get loaded up and head south. I'm just
> getting leveled off at FL 270, getting ther handoff to Mexican ATC
> when one of the lovlies comes up and asks if she can sit in the right
> seat. Being a gentleman, I acquiese. Problem is, she is wearing a
> string bikini. Wheeeeeew. I glanced back to see Doc Jerry with a big
> ****eating grin on his face and for the next couple of hours, I am
> dazzled, blinded and bewildered (not to mention lustful thoughts)
> while the Rams cheerleaders exchange places in the right seat all the
> way to San Jose Del Cabo, all in string bikinis and giving me million
> dollar smiles.
> THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
> Ol Shy & Bashful

And you didn't show them the manual inflation tube for the "Otto"
pilot?

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 8, 5:32 pm, Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> > Years back I was doing FAR 91 corporate flying with a Merlin IIB out
> > of SNA. I had a trip for my boss down to his house in Cabo San Lucas.
> > There was one of many charity fishing tournaments happening that he
> > participated in, and one of the guys asked him if he could add some
> > color to this particular tournament. My boss, being the bon vivant he
> > was, and the guy requesting the favor, who was also a good friend of
> > mine, were of like minds. However, they didn't fill me in on who was
> > headed down to the Cape on this trip.
> > So, being the cool dude and proficient pilot, I had everything ready
> > to go, flight plan filed, cater trays up, bar replenished, standing by
> > at the airport at 0600. The stretch limo pulls up at about 0700 and my
> > friend Doc Jerry gets out, followed by six lovely ladies.
> > Introductions are made and we get loaded up and head south. I'm just
> > getting leveled off at FL 270, getting ther handoff to Mexican ATC
> > when one of the lovlies comes up and asks if she can sit in the right
> > seat. Being a gentleman, I acquiese. Problem is, she is wearing a
> > string bikini. Wheeeeeew. I glanced back to see Doc Jerry with a big
> > ****eating grin on his face and for the next couple of hours, I am
> > dazzled, blinded and bewildered (not to mention lustful thoughts)
> > while the Rams cheerleaders exchange places in the right seat all the
> > way to San Jose Del Cabo, all in string bikinis and giving me million
> > dollar smiles.
> > THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
> > Ol Shy & Bashful
>
> And you didn't show them the manual inflation tube for the "Otto"
> pilot?
>

Groan!!

[Jim Logajan]

Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> Introductions are made and we get loaded up and head south. I'm just
> getting leveled off at FL 270, getting ther handoff to Mexican ATC
> when one of the lovlies comes up and asks if she can sit in the right
> seat. Being a gentleman, I acquiese. Problem is, she is wearing a
> string bikini.

If that's a distraction, what would it be if she had asked to sit on the
left? ;-)

[Aluckyguess]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jul 8, 5:32 pm, Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
>> Years back I was doing FAR 91 corporate flying with a Merlin IIB out
>> of SNA. I had a trip for my boss down to his house in Cabo San Lucas.
>> There was one of many charity fishing tournaments happening that he
>> participated in, and one of the guys asked him if he could add some
>> color to this particular tournament. My boss, being the bon vivant he
>> was, and the guy requesting the favor, who was also a good friend of
>> mine, were of like minds. However, they didn't fill me in on who was
>> headed down to the Cape on this trip.
>> So, being the cool dude and proficient pilot, I had everything ready
>> to go, flight plan filed, cater trays up, bar replenished, standing by
>> at the airport at 0600. The stretch limo pulls up at about 0700 and my
>> friend Doc Jerry gets out, followed by six lovely ladies.
>> Introductions are made and we get loaded up and head south. I'm just
>> getting leveled off at FL 270, getting ther handoff to Mexican ATC
>> when one of the lovlies comes up and asks if she can sit in the right
>> seat. Being a gentleman, I acquiese. Problem is, she is wearing a
>> string bikini. Wheeeeeew. I glanced back to see Doc Jerry with a big
>> ****eating grin on his face and for the next couple of hours, I am
>> dazzled, blinded and bewildered (not to mention lustful thoughts)
>> while the Rams cheerleaders exchange places in the right seat all the
>> way to San Jose Del Cabo, all in string bikinis and giving me million
>> dollar smiles.
>> THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
>> Ol Shy & Bashful
>
> And you didn't show them the manual inflation tube for the "Otto"
> pilot?
>
Thats funny. I am going to use that.

[[email protected]]

Ol Shy & Bashful > wrote:
> I'm just getting leveled off at FL 270, getting ther handoff to
> Mexican ATC when one of the lovlies comes up and asks if she can sit
> in the right seat. Being a gentleman, I acquiese. Problem is, she is
> wearing a string bikini. [...] I am dazzled, blinded and bewildered
> (not to mention lustful thoughts) while the [six] Rams cheerleaders
> exchange places in the right seat all the way to San Jose Del Cabo,
> [...]

In some circles, that'd get the passengers another three to six thousand
feet, no questions asked. (Of course, those pilots almost always stay
out of the flight levels, at least in the US. For further information,
see FAR part 105.)

Matt Roberds

[Mxsmanic]

Ol Shy & Bashful writes:

> THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>

Not if you really like flying.

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:32:37 -0700, Ol Shy & Bashful
> wrote:

snip

>dazzled, blinded and bewildered (not to mention lustful thoughts)
>while the Rams cheerleaders exchange places in the right seat all the
>way to San Jose Del Cabo, all in string bikinis and giving me million
>dollar smiles.
>THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
>Ol Shy & Bashful

In a situation like that, you mention that a "happy" pilot is a
"safe" pilot...

TC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ol Shy & Bashful writes:
>
>> THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
>
> Not if you really like flying.
>

How would you know?
You don't fly, bankruptcy boi


Bertie

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ol Shy & Bashful writes:
>
>> THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
>
> Not if you really like flying.

Since you have stated you have no interest in sex, and no interest in real
flying, on what do you base this statement?

[[email protected]]

El Maximo > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ol Shy & Bashful writes:
> >
> >> THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
> >
> > Not if you really like flying.

> Since you have stated you have no interest in sex, and no interest in real
> flying, on what do you base this statement?

Microsoft Social Interaction Simulator?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> Since you have stated you have no interest in sex, and no interest in real
> flying, on what do you base this statement?

Simulator flight. And I'm not completely uninterested in real flight, it just
isn't a viable option at this time.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Since you have stated you have no interest in sex, and no interest in
>> real
>> flying, on what do you base this statement?
>
> Simulator flight. And I'm not completely uninterested in real flight, it
> just
> isn't a viable option at this time.

Have you ever tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting next to you? If
not, how can you be sure it wouldn't be a distraction?

[Tina]

For what it's worth, I've been known to distract my husband. Why, once
or twice he actually engaged the autopilot. (The safety minded among
you will be happy to know it was in IMC, there was no opportunity to
be looking for other traffic.)



On Jul 11, 7:12 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > El Maximo writes:
>
> >> Since you have stated you have no interest in sex, and no interest in
> >> real
> >> flying, on what do you base this statement?
>
> > Simulator flight. And I'm not completely uninterested in real flight, it
> > just
> > isn't a viable option at this time.
>
> Have you ever tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting next to you? If
> not, how can you be sure it wouldn't be a distraction?

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> Have you ever tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting next to you?

Yes. I've done all sorts of things with a beautiful girl next to me.

> If not, how can you be sure it wouldn't be a distraction?

I've done it, and it's not a distraction, particularly if you want to come
back alive (although my flights are simulated, so that's less of an issue--but
I still don't feel particularly distracted).

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> For what it's worth, I've been known to distract my husband. Why, once
> or twice he actually engaged the autopilot. (The safety minded among
> you will be happy to know it was in IMC, there was no opportunity to
> be looking for other traffic.)

Traffic doesn't go away just because you cannot see it. IMC is a bad time to
be distracted.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> although my flights are simulated

So the answer is NO, you haven't tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting
next to you?

I didn't think so. It doesn't take much intelligence to know the difference
between real flight and simulated flight.

[Tina]

In this case IMC equals flying in the clouds, Mx. There is nothing to
see outside.

I noted in one of your posts while flying the simulator you had a
beautiful woman by your side, and she was not a distraction. What
power of concentration you must have. I would feel slighted if my
husband kept his interest on a computer game if I was trying to
distract him. Maybe it's that he is being very kind, but he allows
himself to be distracted easily in those circumstances. You might find
from a relationship standpoint you'd do better if you allowed such
distractions from time to time.


The last part of that paragraph can be considered professional
advice.

Tina the shrink









On Jul 11, 10:15 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > For what it's worth, I've been known to distract my husband. Why, once
> > or twice he actually engaged the autopilot. (The safety minded among
> > you will be happy to know it was in IMC, there was no opportunity to
> > be looking for other traffic.)
>
> Traffic doesn't go away just because you cannot see it. IMC is a bad time to
> be distracted.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:

> > For what it's worth, I've been known to distract my husband. Why, once
> > or twice he actually engaged the autopilot. (The safety minded among
> > you will be happy to know it was in IMC, there was no opportunity to
> > be looking for other traffic.)

> Traffic doesn't go away just because you cannot see it. IMC is a bad time to
> be distracted.

Clueless idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> In this case IMC equals flying in the clouds, Mx. There is nothing to
> see outside.

But the clouds may hide other aircraft. You need to be on the radio to
maintain separation with ATC, not dealing with cockpit distractions.

> I noted in one of your posts while flying the simulator you had a
> beautiful woman by your side, and she was not a distraction.

Yes.

> What power of concentration you must have.

Not at all. I'm simply not a buck deer in rut, and my behavior is controlled
by my brain, not my hormones.

> I would feel slighted if my husband kept his interest on a computer
> game if I was trying to distract him.

I am not your husband.

> Maybe it's that he is being very kind, but he allows
> himself to be distracted easily in those circumstances.

The answer to that might displease you. Men know how to fake things, too.

> You might find
> from a relationship standpoint you'd do better if you allowed such
> distractions from time to time.

I'm not interested in a relationship, I'm interested in aviation.

[Mxsmanic]

El Maximo writes:

> So the answer is NO, you haven't tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting
> next to you?

The answer is obviously yes.

And if anything, it would be even more difficult to distract me in a real
aircraft than in a simulator, as there is more to hold my attention, and more
at stake if my attention drifts.

> I didn't think so. It doesn't take much intelligence to know the difference
> between real flight and simulated flight.

Actually, successful simulation often requires more intelligence than
unsuccessful simulation.

[Tina]

Ha!

Someone offered the observation 'clueless'.

There are more technical terms (see the DSM) but that fits nicely.



On Jul 11, 10:36 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > In this case IMC equals flying in the clouds, Mx. There is nothing to
> > see outside.
>
> But the clouds may hide other aircraft. You need to be on the radio to
> maintain separation with ATC, not dealing with cockpit distractions.
>
> > I noted in one of your posts while flying the simulator you had a
> > beautiful woman by your side, and she was not a distraction.
>
> Yes.
>
> > What power of concentration you must have.
>
> Not at all. I'm simply not a buck deer in rut, and my behavior is controlled
> by my brain, not my hormones.
>
> > I would feel slighted if my husband kept his interest on a computer
> > game if I was trying to distract him.
>
> I am not your husband.
>
> > Maybe it's that he is being very kind, but he allows
> > himself to be distracted easily in those circumstances.
>
> The answer to that might displease you. Men know how to fake things, too.
>
> > You might find
> > from a relationship standpoint you'd do better if you allowed such
> > distractions from time to time.
>
> I'm not interested in a relationship, I'm interested in aviation.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
> The answer is obviously yes.
>

I'm sorry, I forgot you can't tell reality from simulation.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ol Shy & Bashful writes:
>>
>>> THAT IS A DISTRACTION.........ggg>
>>
>> Not if you really like flying.
>
> Since you have stated you have no interest in sex, and no interest in real
> flying, on what do you base this statement?

My worse distraction ever was my wife getting out of wet clothes after
running to the airplane during a cloudburst.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
>
>> In this case IMC equals flying in the clouds, Mx. There is nothing to
>> see outside.
>
> But the clouds may hide other aircraft. You need to be on the radio to
> maintain separation with ATC, not dealing with cockpit distractions.

If you're IMC, you won't be maintaining separation with
anything, because there isn't anything for you to see. ATC will be
responsible for the separation.

>> I noted in one of your posts while flying the simulator you had a
>> beautiful woman by your side, and she was not a distraction.
>
> Yes.
>
>> What power of concentration you must have.
>
> Not at all. I'm simply not a buck deer in rut, and my behavior is controlled
> by my brain, not my hormones.

If everyone here had a nickel for everytime they've heard that
(especially from their friends or children)... They'd have a dime.

>> I would feel slighted if my husband kept his interest on a computer
>> game if I was trying to distract him.
>
> I am not your husband.

Thank the gods. But she has a point. If you're going to be that
attuned to a game over your significant other, you have some serious
social problems. Not that we didn't know this already to begin with...

>> Maybe it's that he is being very kind, but he allows
>> himself to be distracted easily in those circumstances.
>
> The answer to that might displease you. Men know how to fake things, too.

You don't know about their lives together to be able to come to
the assumption that he is doing so. Don't let your ineptness become the
justified norm for someone else.

>> You might find
>> from a relationship standpoint you'd do better if you allowed such
>> distractions from time to time.
>
> I'm not interested in a relationship, I'm interested in aviation.

I honestly don't think you could handle a relationship. Yes,
you are interested in aviation, but once again, with the attitude you
have and the misguided assumptions you have about things in aviation,
You either a) have a long way to go and a lot to unlearn before you can
even learn anything in aviation, or b) you couldn't handle aviation.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlRbYyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhJ9AJ48TskMTFal4oRnWb3gfZ shoPC0TQCg5krn
jNJFDHGabBXRcZMsWrevZlw=
=gkU1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 11, 10:38 am, Tina > wrote:
> Ha!
>
> Someone offered the observation 'clueless'.
>
> There are more technical terms (see the DSM) but that fits nicely.
>
> On Jul 11, 10:36 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tina writes:
> > > In this case IMC equals flying in the clouds, Mx. There is nothing to
> > > see outside.
>
> > But the clouds may hide other aircraft. You need to be on the radio to
> > maintain separation with ATC, not dealing with cockpit distractions.
>
> > > I noted in one of your posts while flying the simulator you had a
> > > beautiful woman by your side, and she was not a distraction.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > What power of concentration you must have.
>
> > Not at all. I'm simply not a buck deer in rut, and my behavior is controlled
> > by my brain, not my hormones.
>
> > > I would feel slighted if my husband kept his interest on a computer
> > > game if I was trying to distract him.
>
> > I am not your husband.
>
> > > Maybe it's that he is being very kind, but he allows
> > > himself to be distracted easily in those circumstances.
>
> > The answer to that might displease you. Men know how to fake things, too.
>
> > > You might find
> > > from a relationship standpoint you'd do better if you allowed such
> > > distractions from time to time.
>
> > I'm not interested in a relationship, I'm interested in aviation.-

He can have the best of both worlds. Use the FMC to guide the plane
under VFR (so he's not distracted by that pesky simulated ATC voice),
on a long flight between say....LGA and LAX. Then he has a nice four
hours or so to be "distracted."

Of course, the "beautiful woman" that is his distraction is probably a
Playboy magazine anyway <g>

BTW: MY significant other gets royally PO'd if I am not significantly
distracted enough when I am WORKING at home, let alone playing a
stupid flight simulator.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> He can have the best of both worlds. Use the FMC to guide the plane
> under VFR (so he's not distracted by that pesky simulated ATC voice) ...

There's no FMC in the Baron, and I normally don't fly VFR in the big iron.

> BTW: MY significant other gets royally PO'd if I am not significantly
> distracted enough when I am WORKING at home, let alone playing a
> stupid flight simulator.

If you actually fly that way, perhaps your epitaph could say "He was
distracted."

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> If you're IMC, you won't be maintaining separation with
> anything, because there isn't anything for you to see. ATC will be
> responsible for the separation.

That's why I said "you need to be on the radio to maintain separation with
ATC."

> Thank the gods. But she has a point. If you're going to be that
> attuned to a game over your significant other, you have some serious
> social problems.

I don't have a significant other, so the issue does not arise.

> You don't know about their lives together to be able to come to
> the assumption that he is doing so.

I haven't assumed that he is doing so; but neither do I take for granted that
he is not.

> I honestly don't think you could handle a relationship.

I don't know. But since I'm not interested in one, it doesn't matter. I
doubt that I could handle skiing or scuba diving, either, but I'm not
interested in those, so it doesn't matter.

> Yes, you are interested in aviation, but once again, with the attitude you
> have and the misguided assumptions you have about things in aviation,
> You either a) have a long way to go and a lot to unlearn before you can
> even learn anything in aviation, or b) you couldn't handle aviation.

With a girl in a bikini in the right seat, you'd be far better off with me in
the left seat than with some of the macho men here. It amazes me that
so-called pilots are so quick to compromise safety.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> <snip> I normally don't fly <snip>.

Nuff said

[bertie the bunyip's more handsome and macho brother via AviationKB.com]

>Mxsmanic wrote:

[Jon]

On Jul 11, 1:51 pm, Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 10:38 am, Tina > wrote:
>
> > > > You might find
> > > > from a relationship standpoint you'd do better if you allowed such
> > > > distractions from time to time.

Wouldn't that require giving up control from time to time?

> > > I'm not interested in a relationship, I'm interested in aviation.-

Someday evidence of either may be presented.

> He can have the best of both worlds. Use the FMC to guide the plane
> under VFR (so he's not distracted by that pesky simulated ATC voice),
> on a long flight between say....LGA and LAX. Then he has a nice four
> hours or so to be "distracted."
>
> Of course, the "beautiful woman" that is his distraction is probably a
> Playboy magazine anyway <g>

Photoshop is his John <g>

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> If you're IMC, you won't be maintaining separation with
>> anything, because there isn't anything for you to see. ATC will be
>> responsible for the separation.
>
> That's why I said "you need to be on the radio to maintain separation with
> ATC."

Your semantics is horrible. You won't be maintaining separation
with ATC or any other plane in IMC. It is *ATC's* responsibility for
that in IMC. Otherwise, the pilot would use *visual* separation, which
wouldn't be the case in IMC, and as the poster had mentioned, was in
clouds.

Plus, ATC is on the ground, so you would always be and
maintaining separation from them. ;)

>> Thank the gods. But she has a point. If you're going to be that
>> attuned to a game over your significant other, you have some serious
>> social problems.
>
> I don't have a significant other, so the issue does not arise.

It shows.

>> You don't know about their lives together to be able to come to
>> the assumption that he is doing so.
>
> I haven't assumed that he is doing so; but neither do I take for granted that
> he is not.

Yet you imply that he could be faking it. Bit of hypocrisy
there. But I digress; I remember who I am responding to.

>> I honestly don't think you could handle a relationship.
>
> I don't know. But since I'm not interested in one, it doesn't matter. I
> doubt that I could handle skiing or scuba diving, either, but I'm not
> interested in those, so it doesn't matter.
>
>> Yes, you are interested in aviation, but once again, with the attitude you
>> have and the misguided assumptions you have about things in aviation,
>> You either a) have a long way to go and a lot to unlearn before you can
>> even learn anything in aviation, or b) you couldn't handle aviation.
>
> With a girl in a bikini in the right seat, you'd be far better off with me in
> the left seat than with some of the macho men here. It amazes me that
> so-called pilots are so quick to compromise safety.

Do us a favour. Fly Hooters Air and let's see how you fare. ;)

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlSRTyBkZmuMZ8L8RAgMBAKD5OP8ehY17YZwCFZkjRX WKYIJNsACglzuD
C+arcLL2UPl+cdcNFz0fyJg=
=5oBp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[El Maximo]

"bertie the bunyip's more handsome and macho brother via AviationKB.com"
<u33403@uwe> wrote in message news:750627de9002f@uwe...
> >Mxsmanic wrote:

And that's the most intelligent thing he ever wrote.

[BDS[_2_]]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote

> Your semantics is horrible.

That was worth a chuckle.

BDS

[Viperdoc]

You have no idea what's involved in flying a real airplane, let alone the
work load involved in the task.

Stick with playing your game, or go get a real life.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 11, 2:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Doug Semler writes:
> > He can have the best of both worlds. Use the FMC to guide the plane
> > under VFR (so he's not distracted by that pesky simulated ATC voice) ...
>
> There's no FMC in the Baron, and I normally don't fly VFR in the big iron.

What do I care? Read-and-parse. English 1. I said to use the FMC
(ok. in a plane that has one, *obviously*) to guide under VFR (hell,
guide it under IFR for all I care, unless you are worried about a
simulated FSDO appearing on your doorstep) for a long flight (.
Imagine the distractor is a stewardess and you want to join the
simulated mile high club (hmmmmm...interesting fantasy in there
somewhere...). (obvious ad hominem) However, in your case you don't
even need to use the FMC or have a long flight; you'd be finished with
any distraction before tower handed you off to departure after
takeoff.

>
> > BTW: MY significant other gets royally PO'd if I am not significantly
> > distracted enough when I am WORKING at home, let alone playing a
> > stupid flight simulator.
>
> If you actually fly that way, perhaps your epitaph could say "He was
> distracted."

I never said anything about distractions while flying. I was implying
that a [significant other/boyfriend/girlfriend/hell-it-could-be-a-goat-
for-all-I-know] is going to get ****ed off at you if you choose a
computer over the distraction; *regardless* of what you are doing on
the computer at the time of the distraction.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 11, 10:14 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> El Maximo writes:
> > Have you ever tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting next to you?
>
> Yes. I've done all sorts of things with a beautiful girl next to me.

Getting drunk in a strip joint doesn't count
<g>

[Marty Shapiro]

Doug Semler > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Jul 11, 10:14 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> El Maximo writes:
>> > Have you ever tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting next to you?
>>
>> Yes. I've done all sorts of things with a beautiful girl next to me.
>
> Getting drunk in a strip joint doesn't count
> <g>
>
>

Even in a simulated strip joint it doesn't count!

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Viperdoc]

If you're new to the group, Mxs doesn't fly anything except a computer. He
has never flown, and in fact by his own admission is afraid to fly.- (FMC in
a Baron?- VFR in a heavy?)

He talks a big game, but is really clueless about flying. You should see his
stuff on breast feeding.

[Tina]

I haven't been around this newsgroup very long, but concluded early on
that MX has no real airplane cockpit experience, and now I'm thinking
he is not current with women, either. (Uh, would most agee it takes
more than three landings to a full stop before he should carry a
female passenger?)

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

BDS > wrote:
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote
>
>> Your semantics is horrible.
>
> That was worth a chuckle.

Touche. :) My mother (a four-decade long English teacher and
high school principal) would have my hide over that one. Damn!

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlWAjyBkZmuMZ8L8RAq90AJ49WR0Z+Bmjfe9GlIW2em nIEqyCrwCeONPT
jZwDVpxAkJnX9mtJLING0Ok=
=GXJb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> What do I care? Read-and-parse. English 1. I said to use the FMC
> (ok. in a plane that has one, *obviously*) to guide under VFR (hell,
> guide it under IFR for all I care, unless you are worried about a
> simulated FSDO appearing on your doorstep) for a long flight (.
> Imagine the distractor is a stewardess and you want to join the
> simulated mile high club (hmmmmm...interesting fantasy in there
> somewhere...). (obvious ad hominem) However, in your case you don't
> even need to use the FMC or have a long flight; you'd be finished with
> any distraction before tower handed you off to departure after
> takeoff.

It is never acceptable to divert one's attention from the flying task. There
must always be a human being watching the aircraft, if the aircraft is
designed for human pilots.

> I never said anything about distractions while flying. I was implying
> that a [significant other/boyfriend/girlfriend/hell-it-could-be-a-goat-
> for-all-I-know] is going to get ****ed off at you if you choose a
> computer over the distraction; *regardless* of what you are doing on
> the computer at the time of the distraction.

The computer will not become ****ed off. Therefore the choice is easy.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Your semantics is horrible.

Is they really?

> Yet you imply that he could be faking it.

Of course; he _could_ be. That doesn't mean that he is.

I was simply implying that men are not always as interested in sex as they
pretend to be. Sometimes men simulate to please women, or to prove to their
peers that they are virile and heterosexual.

> Do us a favour. Fly Hooters Air and let's see how you fare.

I am very difficult to impossible to distract with mere pretty faces or
bodies.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> You have no idea what's involved in flying a real airplane, let alone the
> work load involved in the task.

I have an excellent idea, and your hyperbole does not change this.
Over-the-top exaggerations do not improve credibility.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> Getting drunk in a strip joint doesn't count

I haven't done that. I don't drink alcohol, and there is nothing in a strip
joint that I'd want to see.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 11, 10:14 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ...
> > Have you ever tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting next to you?
>
> Yes. I've done all sorts of things with a beautiful girl next to me.
>
> > If not, how can you be sure it wouldn't be a distraction?
>
> I've done it, and it's not a distraction, particularly if you want to come
> back alive (although my flights are simulated, so that's less of an issue--but
> I still don't feel particularly distracted).

You are thoroughly insane, or else a lifeless dork.

F--

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Why is it hyperbole or over the top? By your own admission you have never
flown and are afraid to fly.

You simply have no basis of comparison between playing a computer game and
the actual act of flying. Until you have done both, any pronouncements on
your part are based upon conjecture and supposition only.

This is why you have absolutely no credibility, and your statements lack
credence.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Doug Semler writes:

> > Getting drunk in a strip joint doesn't count

> I haven't done that. I don't drink alcohol, and there is nothing in a strip
> joint that I'd want to see.

Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Your semantics is horrible.
>
> Is they really?

Yessum! They is, Mister sir!

>> Yet you imply that he could be faking it.
>
> Of course; he _could_ be. That doesn't mean that he is.

And it isn't your place to assume or imply that he is or isn't.
That is his personal life with his wife, and is no business of yours to
bring up anywhere.

> I was simply implying that men are not always as interested in sex as they
> pretend to be. Sometimes men simulate to please women, or to prove to their
> peers that they are virile and heterosexual.

See above.

>> Do us a favour. Fly Hooters Air and let's see how you fare.
>
> I am very difficult to impossible to distract with mere pretty faces or
> bodies.

You've proven my point regarding social ineptness. How ironic,
seeing that you live in Paris: the city of love.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlafuyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvOzAJ9M5ryUxPPSoFW1feMg8V CsbtSBBgCgjlhS
K7iYknvD8Ij58Ah419PaDYg=
=I+Py
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[El Maximo]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
>
> Even in a simulated strip joint it doesn't count!

Anyone remember "Leisure Suite Larry"?

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> And it isn't your place to assume or imply that he is or isn't.
> That is his personal life with his wife, and is no business of yours to
> bring up anywhere.

I didn't bring it up; someone else did. And if you consider such things not
my business, try to remember that the next time you decide to make personal
comments about me (such as in this very post of yours, see below).

> You've proven my point regarding social ineptness.

See above.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Why is it hyperbole or over the top?

Because it is such a severe exaggeration of reality. In trying to make your
point, you exaggerate your argument until it loses all credibility.

It's rather like counselors who warn teenagers that the first time they try a
drug they'll turn into addicts and end up in the gutter. Teenagers know that
this is a ridiculous exaggeration, and they tend not to take anything they
hear seriously once they realize that the counselor has chosen exaggeration
over truth.

> By your own admission you have never flown and are afraid to fly.

I have flown many times, as a passenger. I'm not afraid to fly; I rather like
flying. I don't know how you reached these conclusions.

> You simply have no basis of comparison between playing a computer game and
> the actual act of flying. Until you have done both ...

I have done both.

> This is why you have absolutely no credibility, and your statements lack
> credence.

You're entitled to your opinion; I disagree with it. Others may form their
own opinions.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.

Alcohol and strip joints don't terrify me. I simply know that taking drugs is
a bad idea, because I'm not stupid. And a strip joint contains nothing that
would be of interest to me, so I see no reason to waste time visiting one.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Just another bunch of your lies again, like saying you didn't have a blog.
Flying as a pax in the back of a heavy you might as well be in a FedEx box-
it is not the same as piloting an airplane, just like playing on your
computer is similar to piloting a real plane, like a Baron. If you claim
your experience as a passenger is the same as piloting, you truly are
delusional.

You have also stated in this NG that you are afraid of stalls and other
maneuvers including acro, yet these are all part of flying (steep turns and
stalls).

Playing a computer game will never be the same as actually flying,
particularly one as limited as MSFS. As has been written many times here, go
get a lesson or even a few hours of flying time in a trainer, and then come
back and share the experience.

Otherwise, you will never have any credibility and will remain a whining
wannabe.

[El Maximo]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...


> Playing a computer game will never be the same as actually flying,

As intelligent as he thinks he is, he'll never figure that one out.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:

> > Why is it hyperbole or over the top?

> Because it is such a severe exaggeration of reality. In trying to make your
> point, you exaggerate your argument until it loses all credibility.

> It's rather like counselors who warn teenagers that the first time they try a
> drug they'll turn into addicts and end up in the gutter. Teenagers know that
> this is a ridiculous exaggeration, and they tend not to take anything they
> hear seriously once they realize that the counselor has chosen exaggeration
> over truth.

Or socially isolated pontificators who say someone who had 2 DUIs
decades ago as a kid must be an alcoholic.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.

> Alcohol and strip joints don't terrify me. I simply know that taking drugs is
> a bad idea, because I'm not stupid. And a strip joint contains nothing that
> would be of interest to me, so I see no reason to waste time visiting one.

Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
which you seem to hold any interest for you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 11, 8:39 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Doug Semler writes:
> > What do I care? Read-and-parse. English 1. I said to use the FMC
> > (ok. in a plane that has one, *obviously*) to guide under VFR (hell,
> > guide it under IFR for all I care, unless you are worried about a
> > simulated FSDO appearing on your doorstep) for a long flight (.
> > Imagine the distractor is a stewardess and you want to join the
> > simulated mile high club (hmmmmm...interesting fantasy in there
> > somewhere...). (obvious ad hominem) However, in your case you don't
> > even need to use the FMC or have a long flight; you'd be finished with
> > any distraction before tower handed you off to departure after
> > takeoff.
>
> It is never acceptable to divert one's attention from the flying task. There
> must always be a human being watching the aircraft, if the aircraft is
> designed for human pilots.

Ok. So hit the Pause button. Problem solved.

>
> > I never said anything about distractions while flying. I was implying
> > that a [significant other/boyfriend/girlfriend/hell-it-could-be-a-goat-
> > for-all-I-know] is going to get ****ed off at you if you choose a
> > computer over the distraction; *regardless* of what you are doing on
> > the computer at the time of the distraction.
>
> The computer will not become ****ed off. Therefore the choice is easy.

Wow. I am speechless. You would rather have a human thing ****ed off
at you for failing to give him/her attention than give up your "flight
time". Amazing.

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> It is never acceptable to divert one's attention from the flying task.

This statement demonstrates a complete lack of real flying knowledge.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 12, 9:55 am, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.
> > Alcohol and strip joints don't terrify me. I simply know that taking drugs is
> > a bad idea, because I'm not stupid. And a strip joint contains nothing that
> > would be of interest to me, so I see no reason to waste time visiting one.
>
> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.
>
> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
> which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>

They also contain women. Naked women. Usually at least one good
looking naked woman.

Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

Therefore:
Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
(Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

In my case, my lack of interest is that I don't care for PAYING to see
naked women. (Although some might argue that I "pay" on a daily basis
at home <g>)

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 12, 10:10 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > It is never acceptable to divert one's attention from the flying task.
>
> This statement demonstrates a complete lack of real flying knowledge.

Considering his warped definition of "flying," it is not surprising.

[[email protected]]

Doug Semler > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:55 am, wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > writes:
> > > > Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.
> > > Alcohol and strip joints don't terrify me. I simply know that taking drugs is
> > > a bad idea, because I'm not stupid. And a strip joint contains nothing that
> > > would be of interest to me, so I see no reason to waste time visiting one.
> >
> > Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.
> >
> > Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
> > which you seem to hold any interest for you.
> >

> They also contain women. Naked women. Usually at least one good
> looking naked woman.

> Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
> Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
> Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

> Therefore:
> Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
> Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
> (Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
> homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

> In my case, my lack of interest is that I don't care for PAYING to see
> naked women. (Although some might argue that I "pay" on a daily basis
> at home <g>)

It was never specified as either a staight strip club or gay strip club,
so the only possible conclusion is he is asexual like a fungus.

Most people have the related objective of social interaction (i.e. BS)
with other people, so the conclusion is he has no interest in human
contact of any kind.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 12, 1:15 pm, wrote:
> Doug Semler > wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 9:55 am, wrote:
> > > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > > writes:
> > > > > Yes, we know, all aspects of real life terrify you.
> > > > Alcohol and strip joints don't terrify me. I simply know that taking drugs is
> > > > a bad idea, because I'm not stupid. And a strip joint contains nothing that
> > > > would be of interest to me, so I see no reason to waste time visiting one.
>
> > > Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.
>
> > > Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
> > > which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>
> > They also contain women. Naked women. Usually at least one good
> > looking naked woman.
> > Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
> > Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
> > Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.
> > Therefore:
> > Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
> > Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
> > (Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
> > homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.
> > In my case, my lack of interest is that I don't care for PAYING to see
> > naked women. (Although some might argue that I "pay" on a daily basis
> > at home <g>)
>
> It was never specified as either a staight strip club or gay strip club,
> so the only possible conclusion is he is asexual like a fungus.

Good point, but in the context of the thread, a reasonable conclusion
was that I was referring to a "gentlemen's club" due to the fact that
I was originally referring to the statement that he has "done all
sorts of things with a beautiful girl next to [him]."

>
> Most people have the related objective of social interaction (i.e. BS)
> with other people, so the conclusion is he has no interest in human
> contact of any kind.

Reasonable conclusion. The DSM-IV calls it "Social Phobia," I
believe. I also believe that there is treatment available for it as
well. <g>

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> And it isn't your place to assume or imply that he is or isn't.
>> That is his personal life with his wife, and is no business of yours to
>> bring up anywhere.
>
> I didn't bring it up; someone else did. And if you consider such things not
> my business, try to remember that the next time you decide to make personal
> comments about me (such as in this very post of yours, see below).

There is a big difference between personal comments and common
knowledge. Common Knowledge: you live in Paris. Common knowledge: your
knowledge of aviation and flying is as limited as a prostitute's
knowledge of quantum physics. You said it yourself, that you have no
interest in dealing with the opposite sex and would rather sit at your
simulator all day/night long. I just pointed out the irony of that with
the city of Paris. You only have yourself to blame for putting yourself
out on the line like that. Next time, you may want to check yourself.

>> You've proven my point regarding social ineptness.
>
> See above.

I have a life, including a significant other. While I may not
have as much experience as others here, I do possess a steady
knowledge of aviation and flying; not as much as those who do it here
for a living, but enough for them to realize that I am learning, and
not assuming that anything simulated is real. I can interact with
people rather than be a reclusive leper. Hell, I can interact with
Bertie, and that's a feat in itself!

Like I said. Leper, socially inept. If you want to be a
reclusive hermit, go all out and move to some deep dark forest; don't
do it in a place where the irony of your existence can always be
exploted.

Bottom line: you want respect with this group of people who
have the experience you keep blasting and claim that their experience
is wrong, you have to earn it. By doing what you're doing, you never
will, and that is your loss, not the rest of us, or anyone in this
group. Heh.. Tina is rather very new to this group, and she's already
seen through you. But once again, I digress.. I remember (once again)
who I am responding to.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlmiLyBkZmuMZ8L8RAjHKAKDkoLnUapCwEa9nhZpncU sS3Jx9+gCgwQfL
ipfteZqL1Q2XTv/XH2wvy3k=
=R3rg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

El Maximo > wrote:
> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
>>
>> Even in a simulated strip joint it doesn't count!
>
> Anyone remember "Leisure Suite Larry"?

That made me spit out my coffee! LSL is a CLASSIC! I still have
the original on disk!

Damn you. Now I have to go break it out and play it again.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlmlZyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvHeAJ0TiEYEQ9yd7EtGVlUoxj CCK/T6PACgmsi5
P/nty5H10vxo3Ipd8uOoQqE=
=sCGR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Doug Semler]

On Jul 12, 1:48 pm, A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> El Maximo > wrote:
> > "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
>
> >> Even in a simulated strip joint it doesn't count!
>
> > Anyone remember "Leisure Suite Larry"?
>
> That made me spit out my coffee! LSL is a CLASSIC! I still have
> the original on disk!
>
> Damn you. Now I have to go break it out and play it again.
>
> BL.

Even worse for me. I have the damned theme song stuck in my head
now...

[El Maximo]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
news:gMtli.46059
> Bottom line: you want respect with this group of people who
> have the experience you keep blasting and claim that their experience
> is wrong, you have to earn it.

Anthony doesn't want respent. He wants attention.

[Marty Shapiro]

"El Maximo" > wrote in
:

> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
>>
>> Even in a simulated strip joint it doesn't count!
>
> Anyone remember "Leisure Suite Larry"?
>
>

Don't forget LSL's Casino!

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[El Maximo]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
news:vPtli.46060
> El Maximo > wrote:
>> Anyone remember "Leisure Suite Larry"?
>
> That made me spit out my coffee! LSL is a CLASSIC! I still have
> the original on disk!
>
> Damn you. Now I have to go break it out and play it again.
>
> BL.

Do you have a 5 1/4" drive to put it in?

Can your screen run in CGA mode?

[Tina]

Didn't Ernest Gann, (spelling screwed up?) in one of his books talk
about a captain lighting matches under the nose of his first officer
while the FO was flying in bad weather or an approach or something, as
a way of teaching concentration?

Well, if you had a choice of distractions. . . .

[Jim Stewart]

Tina wrote:
> Didn't Ernest Gann, (spelling screwed up?) in one of his books talk
> about a captain lighting matches under the nose of his first officer
> while the FO was flying in bad weather or an approach or something, as
> a way of teaching concentration?

"Fate is the Hunter", toward the front of the book.

> Well, if you had a choice of distractions. . . .
>

[Al G[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Didn't Ernest Gann, (spelling screwed up?) in one of his books talk
> about a captain lighting matches under the nose of his first officer
> while the FO was flying in bad weather or an approach or something, as
> a way of teaching concentration?
>
> Well, if you had a choice of distractions. . . .
>
Good Point, now as an Instrument instructor, and an Ernest Gann fan, how
can I incorporate this into a lesson plan?

Al G

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

El Maximo > wrote:
> "A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
> news:vPtli.46060
>> El Maximo > wrote:
>>> Anyone remember "Leisure Suite Larry"?
>>
>> That made me spit out my coffee! LSL is a CLASSIC! I still have
>> the original on disk!
>>
>> Damn you. Now I have to go break it out and play it again.
>>
>> BL.
>
> Do you have a 5 1/4" drive to put it in?
>
> Can your screen run in CGA mode?

IBM 486SX/20. Windows 3.1, 4MB RAM, 1 3 1/2" floppy, and one
5 1/4" floppy. 129MB HD. All still works, and can get it in VGA mode.

I'm golden. :)

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlqnLyBkZmuMZ8L8RArYgAJ4wE0rG1yLdlKAxvtQfmJ ktM8HHNwCgq2hQ
7nFbVurrrX16eHw0HU0KOlc=
=Npi9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Blueskies]

"Al G" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Tina" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> Didn't Ernest Gann, (spelling screwed up?) in one of his books talk
>> about a captain lighting matches under the nose of his first officer
>> while the FO was flying in bad weather or an approach or something, as
>> a way of teaching concentration?
>>
>> Well, if you had a choice of distractions. . . .
>>
> Good Point, now as an Instrument instructor, and an Ernest Gann fan, how can I incorporate this into a lesson plan?
>
> Al G
>


Use a Bic?

[TheSmokingGnu]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> IBM 486SX/20. Windows 3.1, 4MB RAM, 1 3 1/2" floppy, and one
> 5 1/4" floppy. 129MB HD. All still works, and can get it in VGA mode.
>
> I'm golden. :)

Oh, Mr. Fancypants IBM. _Some_ of us made do with a Cyrix 486DX2 and a
Cirrus Tech video adapter. :D

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think another round of Epic Pinball is in order.

TheSmokingGnu

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:33:46 -0700, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote:

>A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>> IBM 486SX/20. Windows 3.1, 4MB RAM, 1 3 1/2" floppy, and one
>> 5 1/4" floppy. 129MB HD. All still works, and can get it in VGA mode.
>>
>> I'm golden. :)
>
>Oh, Mr. Fancypants IBM. _Some_ of us made do with a Cyrix 486DX2 and a
>Cirrus Tech video adapter. :D
>
>Now, if you'll excuse me, I think another round of Epic Pinball is in order.

Timex/Sinclair ZX81 with cassette tape flight sim. A block and 4
underlines. Man those were the days......

[DougS]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jul 11, 10:14 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> ...
>> > Have you ever tried flight with a beautiful girl sitting next to you?
>>
>> Yes. I've done all sorts of things with a beautiful girl next to me.
>>
>> > If not, how can you be sure it wouldn't be a distraction?
>>
>> I've done it, and it's not a distraction, particularly if you want to
>> come
>> back alive (although my flights are simulated, so that's less of an
>> issue--but
>> I still don't feel particularly distracted).
>
> You are thoroughly insane, or else a lifeless dork.


Remove the "or" and replace it with "and."

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> Wow. I am speechless. You would rather have a human thing ****ed off
> at you for failing to give him/her attention than give up your "flight
> time".

Correct.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> There is a big difference between personal comments and common
> knowledge. Common Knowledge: you live in Paris. Common knowledge: your
> knowledge of aviation and flying is as limited as a prostitute's
> knowledge of quantum physics.

What correlation is there between prostitution and knowledge of quantum
physics?

> You said it yourself, that you have no
> interest in dealing with the opposite sex and would rather sit at your
> simulator all day/night long.

Sounds good to me.

> I just pointed out the irony of that with the city of Paris.

Paris is not a bordello.

> I have a life, including a significant other.

I have a life, also, but it excludes a significant other.

> While I may not
> have as much experience as others here, I do possess a steady
> knowledge of aviation and flying; not as much as those who do it here
> for a living, but enough for them to realize that I am learning, and
> not assuming that anything simulated is real.

In other words, you're not a pilot, but you salivate when a pilot rings a
bell, so that's okay.

> Bottom line: you want respect with this group of people who
> have the experience you keep blasting and claim that their experience
> is wrong, you have to earn it.

I don't care about respect, only information. I don't blast people; those who
might arguably be worthy of blasting usually do enough damage to themselves,
anyway.

> But once again, I digress..

Yes, once again. It would be nice if you would limit yourself to the topic at
hand, however much I fascinate or intimidate you personally.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Just another bunch of your lies again, like saying you didn't have a blog.

You see, you're exaggerating again. I'm not a liar, so calling me one is
quite an exaggeration. And I've never had a blog.

> You have also stated in this NG that you are afraid of stalls and other
> maneuvers including acro, yet these are all part of flying (steep turns and
> stalls).

Steep turns and stalls are not aerobatics, and I'm not afraid of them per se.
I just don't like extreme maneuvers; they increase risk.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
> which you seem to hold any interest for you.

Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug Semler writes:

> Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
> Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
> Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

So far, so good.

> Therefore:
> Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
> Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
> (Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
> homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.

1. All A are B.
2. X is B.
3. X is A.

Incorrect.

1. All A are B.
2. X is A.
3. X is B.

Correct.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> There is a big difference between personal comments and common
>> knowledge. Common Knowledge: you live in Paris. Common knowledge: your
>> knowledge of aviation and flying is as limited as a prostitute's
>> knowledge of quantum physics.
>
> What correlation is there between prostitution and knowledge of quantum
> physics?

Must everything be explained in idiotproof terms to you? Once
again, I digress.

I am describing in various terms, the knowledge and expertise
of aviation and flying of every person in this newsgroup compared to
your lack of.

Like trying to make you see reason; it's easier to applaud with
one hand.

>> You said it yourself, that you have no
>> interest in dealing with the opposite sex and would rather sit at your
>> simulator all day/night long.
>
> Sounds good to me.

I would pity you, but I actually feel a lot happier for the
women in your area, for it would be the first time the female gender
would have to deal with the male being frigid (no offense, ladies!).

>> I just pointed out the irony of that with the city of Paris.
>
> Paris is not a bordello.

Never has been, nor ever will. But Paris is the City of Lights
and the City of Love. how ironic that someone so devoid of that and
affections towards the opposite sex would live in such a city.

>> I have a life, including a significant other.
>
> I have a life, also, but it excludes a significant other.

See above and above that.

>> While I may not
>> have as much experience as others here, I do possess a steady
>> knowledge of aviation and flying; not as much as those who do it here
>> for a living, but enough for them to realize that I am learning, and
>> not assuming that anything simulated is real.
>
> In other words, you're not a pilot, but you salivate when a pilot rings a
> bell, so that's okay.

I never said I was; I did say that I am taking the classes to
become one and get my ticket.

>> Bottom line: you want respect with this group of people who
>> have the experience you keep blasting and claim that their experience
>> is wrong, you have to earn it.
>
> I don't care about respect, only information. I don't blast people; those who
> might arguably be worthy of blasting usually do enough damage to themselves,
> anyway.

Yet you argue that information and say that it is wrong, yet it
is coming from someone who has the fruit on the tree and is telling you
the information you want. How many times must you refuse to walk in the
footsteps of someone who has been through the mine field to make it
through that field to safety?

I seriously doubt that Jay, Ron, Tina, Newps, and others here
would say that after they tell you what you want, and you tell them
it's wrong, that they would agree with you that it is wrong, when you
haven't stepped foot in the left seat of any aircraft to prove your
claim as right or valid. And since you say you never will, all your
rants and whinges about things here are like you; have no credibility
or weight to stand on.

>> But once again, I digress..
>
> Yes, once again. It would be nice if you would limit yourself to the topic at
> hand, however much I fascinate or intimidate you personally.

I have. But as you keep bringing it to yourself and taking this
offtopic, practice what you preach.

Me fascinated or intimidated by you? If anything the only thing
you could possibly have of mine, is my pity, and like respect, it is
earned, not bestowed.

BL.

P.S. How's that flight to Tuweep coming along? ;)
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlws5yBkZmuMZ8L8RAtdPAJsH0koBhYFvZbgnJcuYXD em3CwDEwCeJHBv
183VG0ZIzA3EXl3M/RpTfNw=
=gu6d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
>> Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
>> Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.
>
> So far, so good.
>
>> Therefore:
>> Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
>> Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
>> (Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
>> homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.
>
> No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.
>
> 1. All A are B.
> 2. X is B.
> 3. X is A.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> 1. All A are B.
> 2. X is A.
> 3. X is B.
>
> Correct.

So let's run this up the flagpole:

1. Nothing is better than sex.
2. Masturbation is better than nothing; therefore
3. Masturbation is better than sex.

Pour toi, c'est vrai?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGlwugyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsdEAKCxZDDVuqUq1D/hI7pCgDj6gd/qzACeNw+O
3GcIUermXyBL6mwm2aCxq+w=
=LeJf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[El Maximo]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
news:BYDli.6336

> So let's run this up the flagpole:
>
> 1. Nothing is better than sex.
> 2. Masturbation is better than nothing; therefore
> 3. Masturbation is better than sex.
>
> Pour toi, c'est vrai?

If you replace Masturbation with Microsoft Flight Simulator, you've summed
up Anthony's dismal life in three lines. In fact, you could also replace sex
with anything, (real flying, social interaction, intelligent conversation,
etc...) and still be on target.

[BDS[_2_]]

"El Maximo" > wrote
>
> If you replace Masturbation with Microsoft Flight Simulator, you've summed
> up Anthony's dismal life in three lines. In fact, you could also replace
sex
> with anything, (real flying, social interaction, intelligent conversation,
> etc...) and still be on target.
>

I suspect it's a voluntary program to help save France from having to go
through the formality of enacting a law that forbids him to reproduce.

BDS

[DougS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
>> Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
>> Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.
>
> So far, so good.
>
>> Therefore:
>> Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
>> Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
>> (Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
>> homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.
>
> No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.
>
> 1. All A are B.
> 2. X is B.
> 3. X is A.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> 1. All A are B.
> 2. X is A.
> 3. X is B.
>
> Correct.


No, it is syllogistic (deductive) logic with a logical fallacy of an
undistributed middle (and an aside ad hominem attack). Hence my
parenthetical about the conclusion. Of course you knew that, since you are
a teacher of English, are supposedly fluent in the English language and have
basic reading comprehenshion skills.

For your edification (not like you'd understand this but...):
Inductive reasoning infers a universal based on observational premises.
Probably the most common form of inductive reasoning is a spam blocker,
which infers new item categorization based upon previously observed
categorizations (which is why spam blockers get more accurate as the user
categorizes more items; the increase in sample size allows more
specificity). You will also commonly hear this (the spam blocker, not
inductive reasoning) called a "Bayesian Classifier". Inductive arguments
are often referred to as "probabilistic."

Deductive reasoning infers its conclusions from the premises. Boolean
algebra, also symbolic logic, are forms of deductive reasoning. The
conclusions logically follow from the premises. A deductive argument is
valid if it follows the syllogistic rules (my argument above is not even a
valid argument due to the fallacy of undistributed middle). An argument may
be valid even if the premises are not true. A deductive argument is sound
if the argument is valid and the premises are also true.

Abductive reasoning infers the premises from observed conclusion. (Also
known as infering the causes, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

By the way, your statement that "inductive reasoning is unreliable" is
itself an inductive argument, and therefore unreliable (assuming that
inductive reasoning, is, in fact unreliable). Oh, yeah, that is ........
drum roll please ..... a circular argument

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.

> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Clueless.

> > Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
> > which you seem to hold any interest for you.

> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Yeah, real human beings.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[El Maximo]

"DougS" > wrote in message
...

So, the bottom line is Anthony is trying to use big words again in order to
sound intelligent?

> No, it is syllogistic (deductive) logic with a logical fallacy of an
> undistributed middle (and an aside ad hominem attack).

> Inductive reasoning infers a universal based on observational premises.

> Abductive reasoning infers the premises from observed conclusion. (Also
> known as infering the causes, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

>
> By the way, your statement that "inductive reasoning is unreliable" is
> itself an inductive argument, and therefore unreliable (assuming that
> inductive reasoning, is, in fact unreliable). Oh, yeah, that is ........
> drum roll please ..... a circular argument

[DougS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.
>
> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

Notwithstanding the hasty generalization regarding the reasons for
consumption, ethanol is a CNS depressant, not a "mind altering drug."

>
>> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
>> which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>
> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

Yeah, we all know (now) that you avoid naked women.

[DougS]

"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...
> "DougS" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> So, the bottom line is Anthony is trying to use big words again in order
> to sound intelligent?

You know, the entire time I was composing that message, I was thinking he's
"better to keep his mouth shut and be thought an idiot than to open it and
remove all doubt."

:)

[[email protected]]

DougS > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > writes:
> >
> >> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.
> >
> > Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.

> Notwithstanding the hasty generalization regarding the reasons for
> consumption, ethanol is a CNS depressant, not a "mind altering drug."

> >
> >> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
> >> which you seem to hold any interest for you.
> >
> > Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.

> Yeah, we all know (now) that you avoid naked women.

And any contact with real humans.

Which is probably a good thing with his insufferable attitude.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Al G[_2_]]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:33:46 -0700, TheSmokingGnu
> > wrote:
>
>>A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>>> IBM 486SX/20. Windows 3.1, 4MB RAM, 1 3 1/2" floppy, and one
>>> 5 1/4" floppy. 129MB HD. All still works, and can get it in VGA mode.
>>>
>>> I'm golden. :)
>>
>>Oh, Mr. Fancypants IBM. _Some_ of us made do with a Cyrix 486DX2 and a
>>Cirrus Tech video adapter. :D
>>
>>Now, if you'll excuse me, I think another round of Epic Pinball is in
>>order.
>
> Timex/Sinclair ZX81 with cassette tape flight sim. A block and 4
> underlines. Man those were the days......

At least you had a Timex/Sinclair ZX81, why when I was a kid I had an
abacus and was grateful for it.

Next?


Al G

[El Maximo]

"Al G" > wrote in message
...

> At least you had a Timex/Sinclair ZX81, why when I was a kid I had an
> abacus and was grateful for it.
>
> Next?
>

I had to take off my shoes when I counted past eleven <g>

That would only take me to eighteen, due to the frostbite from walking to
and from school in the snow, uphill both ways, barefoot.

Next?

[Jon]

On Jul 13, 1:16 pm, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Al G" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > At least you had a Timex/Sinclair ZX81, why when I was a kid I had an
> > abacus and was grateful for it.
>
> > Next?
>
> I had to take off my shoes when I counted past eleven <g>
>
> That would only take me to eighteen, due to the frostbite from walking to
> and from school in the snow, uphill both ways, barefoot.
>
> Next?

You (plural) and your obsessive arguing ;) have left me no choice but
to
resurrect a goodie I saved as OneUp.txt. How odd it came from
Usenet ;)


================ CUT HERE ================

I found the following in newsgroup conversation that got out of hand.
One guy
made a sarcastic comment (the first on this list) and then the rest
started
one-upping. Each paragraph is _apparently_ from a different person but
since I
didn't excerpt this, I can't verify it. A professor at MIT compiled
and posted
the result for everyone to stare at.

.... ======================== HERE GOES ========================


Right! I run System V on my VIC-20!

Hmmmm...well, I am getting SVR4 for my HP 48Sx.....

HA! _I'm_ just finishing up a port of VMS for my Timex Sinclair! Top
THAT!

I'm running NextStep on Atari 2600 Video Game System.

Just last night I was able to get Windows to boot on my Sears PONG
game.

I am replying to this message with my built-in VAX Mailer on my Game-
Boy.

I just installed a 10 Gigabyte Drive to handle all the replies!
However, it only
runs at 230,000 Baud due to the large drive slowing it down.

I fear I will not be getting news any longer... The batteries on my
calculator
watch are running out.

My calculator watch is Solar... And if I turned off the lights, NO ONE
would be
gettings news...

Feh. I'm so slick NASA just awarded ME the TERADATA contract to run on
my TV
remote! They liked my proposal mainly because I'm ALSO able to
shoehorn in the
TEXAS SUPERCOLLIDER computations between commercials! Beat THAT!

Well, well, well. SSC calculations, huh. I built a system out of 2
inches of
wire, 3 pennies and a AA battery that does realtime calculations of
particle
vectors during the Big Bang. A complete simulation of the first 2
years of the
life of the universe accurate to the theoretical limit, takes about 5
seconds.

And you guys think you are so great. I just spent the last half hour
getting X11
to run on my slide rule. I am still having problem connecting it to
the net
around here, but I would welcome any suggestions.

So what!!! I'm running Xinitrc, TWMRC, Internet, and 27 muds off of a
paper
clip. Not to mention the fact that I am designing a new form of
television with
7000 pixels based off a piece of tissue paper. Next!!!

Man, that's baby stuff. I'm running a particle accelerator utilizing
matter-antimatter reactions in my doorknob, and calculating everything
in the
fourth dimension using a single dip switch and a large glass of water.

Chilld's play, I have an old piece of cheese that is, at this very
moment,
raytracing an actual model of the universe five hours from now, while
at the
same time calculating the heat produced from the new Pentium.

And you people think that you are hackers! I'm currently engaged in a
project
which involves simultaneous simulation of multiple universes (To see
what would
happen if various constants change. Pi-8.4 is an interesting one.) My
hardware
consists of a single wooden pencil (no paper, With it, I can do real-
time
simulations of 2^32 universes in parallel.

You guys are wimps!! I've just finished converting a microwave oven
into a
paradimensional teleportation device., The problem I'm having so far
is that my
breakfast bagel keeps disappearing!! May have to eat it raw . . .

Sorry, that's my fault. I'm afraid that the high energy laser-pumped
negentropic
vortex generator I made from my own nostril hair, which is currently
cranking
out entire new universes at the rate of 7.6 per picosecond, was
breaking the FCC
emissions limits and gronking your microwave's control panel. It
should work
properly now. Also, my cat Arthur was FTPing hundreds of terabytes of
PD
software from Epsilon Eridani in the year 4741 A.D over the faster-
than-light
Ethernet interface I built for him, and this may have been loading the
Net a
little yesterday. My sincere apologies to everyone who noticed any
performance
degradation.

I am bribing that cat with sardines. My next project will use
sophisticated
software from 4741 A.D. to autogenerate trashy science fiction novels
from my
coffee cup. I'm almost there.... it works as well as Windows 3.0

================ CUT HERE ================


:)

[El Maximo]

"Jon" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> ================ CUT HERE ================
<snip>

> ================ CUT HERE ================

My entire response is compressed within the line below:
..

[DougS]

"Jon" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> I am bribing that cat with sardines. My next project will use
> sophisticated
> software from 4741 A.D. to autogenerate trashy science fiction novels
> from my
> coffee cup. I'm almost there.... it works as well as Windows 3.0
>
> ================ CUT HERE ================
>
>
> :)
>


Oh yeah? I managed to get Microsoft Flight Simulator to accurately model
aircraft dynamics.

As real as it gets baby.

so THERE! :P

[Al G[_2_]]

"DougS" > wrote in message
news:B4ednYa8ovAlVQrbnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>> I am bribing that cat with sardines. My next project will use
>> sophisticated
>> software from 4741 A.D. to autogenerate trashy science fiction novels
>> from my
>> coffee cup. I'm almost there.... it works as well as Windows 3.0
>>
>> ================ CUT HERE ================
>>
>>
>> :)
>>
>
>
> Oh yeah? I managed to get Microsoft Flight Simulator to accurately model
> aircraft dynamics.
>
> As real as it gets baby.
>
> so THERE! :P

Can't touch that.

Al G

[TheSmokingGnu]

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> So let's run this up the flagpole:
>
> 1. Nothing is better than sex.
> 2. Masturbation is better than nothing; therefore
> 3. Masturbation is better than sex.
>
> Pour toi, c'est vrai?

Not that I wish to detract, but you do know about the rules of
equivocation, right?

Or was that the joke? I swear, sometimes people try much too hard to
castigate the resident troll; he's not that intellectually endowed! :D

TheSmokingGnu

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

DougS wrote:
> I managed to get Microsoft Flight Simulator to accurately model
>aircraft dynamics.
>
>As real as it gets baby.
>
>so THERE! :P
Any nostril hairs involved?

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[DougS]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:7520fb1a6ca6b@uwe...
> DougS wrote:
>> I managed to get Microsoft Flight Simulator to accurately model
>>aircraft dynamics.
>>
>>As real as it gets baby.
>>
>>so THERE! :P
> Any nostril hairs involved?
>


Nope. Toe jam.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

TheSmokingGnu > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>> So let's run this up the flagpole:
>>
>> 1. Nothing is better than sex.
>> 2. Masturbation is better than nothing; therefore
>> 3. Masturbation is better than sex.
>>
>> Pour toi, c'est vrai?
>
> Not that I wish to detract, but you do know about the rules of
> equivocation, right?
>
> Or was that the joke? I swear, sometimes people try much too hard to
> castigate the resident troll; he's not that intellectually endowed! :D

Indeed. That's the joke. in fact, it's one of the daily fortune
cookie fortunes I get on my server I log in to daily. It fit well with
where the topic was headed in this thread. :)

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGl/pRyBkZmuMZ8L8RApwtAJ4qMXoWNPPKVo+tuVWSt48RZe8wRQCb Bqfn
h0C28UPbF1Gjh/BjIigGwsk=
=FdIj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"DougS" > wrote in
:

> "El Maximo" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "DougS" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> So, the bottom line is Anthony is trying to use big words again in
>> order to sound intelligent?
>
> You know, the entire time I was composing that message, I was thinking
> he's "better to keep his mouth shut and be thought an idiot than to
> open it and remove all doubt."
>
>:)
>
>
>

I've never had any doubt. It's what i love most about him!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
>> Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
>> Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.
>
> So far, so good.
>
>> Therefore:
>> Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
>> Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
>> (Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is
a
>> homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.
>
> No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.
>
> 1. All A are B.
> 2. X is B.
> 3. X is A.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> 1. All A are B.
> 2. X is A.
> 3. X is B.
>
> Correct.
>

Whooosh


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.
>
> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.
>
>> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
>> which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>
> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.
>

Pilots, obviously.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Getting drunk in a strip joint doesn't count
>
> I haven't done that. I don't drink alcohol, and there is nothing in a
> strip joint that I'd want to see.
>


Now there's a surprise..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Just another bunch of your lies again, like saying you didn't have a
>> blog.
>
> You see, you're exaggerating again. I'm not a liar, so calling me one
> is quite an exaggeration. And I've never had a blog.
>
>> You have also stated in this NG that you are afraid of stalls and
>> other maneuvers including acro, yet these are all part of flying
>> (steep turns and stalls).
>
> Steep turns and stalls are not aerobatics, and I'm not afraid of them
> per se. I just don't like extreme maneuvers; they increase risk.


Bwaahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhw!

What a fjukkwit you are.



Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> So the answer is NO, you haven't tried flight with a beautiful girl
>> sitting next to you?
>
> The answer is obviously yes.
>
> And if anything, it would be even more difficult to distract me in a
> real aircraft than in a simulator,


Obviously, since you will mnever ever fly a real airplane.

Never

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Why is it hyperbole or over the top?
>
> Because it is such a severe exaggeration of reality. In trying to
> make your point, you exaggerate your argument until it loses all
> credibility.


Any response to your drivel doesn't require credibility



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> There is a big difference between personal comments and common
>> knowledge. Common Knowledge: you live in Paris. Common knowledge:
>> your knowledge of aviation and flying is as limited as a prostitute's
>> knowledge of quantum physics.
>
> What correlation is there between prostitution and knowledge of
> quantum physics?
>
>> You said it yourself, that you have no
>> interest in dealing with the opposite sex and would rather sit at
>> your simulator all day/night long.
>
> Sounds good to me.

Sounds good to the universe



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> Wow. I am speechless. You would rather have a human thing ****ed off
>> at you for failing to give him/her attention than give up your "flight
>> time".
>
> Correct.
>

God I love usent.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> What do I care? Read-and-parse. English 1. I said to use the FMC
>> (ok. in a plane that has one, *obviously*) to guide under VFR (hell,
>> guide it under IFR for all I care, unless you are worried about a
>> simulated FSDO appearing on your doorstep) for a long flight (.
>> Imagine the distractor is a stewardess and you want to join the
>> simulated mile high club (hmmmmm...interesting fantasy in there
>> somewhere...). (obvious ad hominem) However, in your case you don't
>> even need to use the FMC or have a long flight; you'd be finished
>> with any distraction before tower handed you off to departure after
>> takeoff.
>
> It is never acceptable to divert one's attention from the flying task.
> There must always be a human being watching the aircraft, if the
> aircraft is designed for human pilots.
>


Wrong again.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Doug Semler writes:
>
>> He can have the best of both worlds. Use the FMC to guide the plane
>> under VFR (so he's not distracted by that pesky simulated ATC voice)
>> ...
>
> There's no FMC in the Baron, and I normally don't fly VFR in the big
> iron.
>


Big Iron?

Bwawhahwhahwhah1



You don't fly anything ever, fjukktard#



>> BTW: MY significant other gets royally PO'd if I am not significantly
>> distracted enough when I am WORKING at home, let alone playing a
>> stupid flight simulator.
>
> If you actually fly that way, perhaps your epitaph could say "He was
> distracted."


All pilots get distracted, fjukkwit.


Name of the game is to not allow it to kill you.


Real pilots know **** like that, ya see.



Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> If you're IMC, you won't be maintaining separation with
>> anything, because there isn't anything for you to see. ATC will be
>> responsible for the separation.
>
> That's why I said "you need to be on the radio to maintain separation
> with ATC."


No, actually, you don't.


Fjukkwit.



>
>> Thank the gods. But she has a point. If you're going to be that
>> attuned to a game over your significant other, you have some serious
>> social problems.
>
> I don't have a significant other, so the issue does not arise.
>
>> You don't know about their lives together to be able to come to
>> the assumption that he is doing so.
>
> I haven't assumed that he is doing so; but neither do I take for
> granted that he is not.
>
>> I honestly don't think you could handle a relationship.
>
> I don't know. But since I'm not interested in one, it doesn't matter.
> I doubt that I could handle skiing or scuba diving, either, but I'm
> not interested in those, so it doesn't matter.
>
>> Yes, you are interested in aviation, but once again, with the
>> attitude you have and the misguided assumptions you have about things
>> in aviation, You either a) have a long way to go and a lot to unlearn
>> before you can even learn anything in aviation, or b) you couldn't
>> handle aviation.
>
> With a girl in a bikini in the right seat, you'd be far better off
> with me in the left seat than with some of the macho men here. It
> amazes me that so-called pilots are so quick to compromise safety.
>


You have no idea what safety is, You don't fly.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Your semantics is horrible.
>
> Is they really?
>
>> Yet you imply that he could be faking it.
>
> Of course; he _could_ be. That doesn't mean that he is.
>
> I was simply implying that men are not always as interested in sex as
> they pretend to be. Sometimes men simulate to please women, or to
> prove to their peers that they are virile and heterosexual.
>
>> Do us a favour. Fly Hooters Air and let's see how you fare.
>
> I am very difficult to impossible to distract with mere pretty faces
> or bodies.


Obviously. It's one of the obvious signs of autism..


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> El Maximo writes:
>
>> Since you have stated you have no interest in sex, and no interest in
>> real flying, on what do you base this statement?
>
> Simulator flight.


That's not flight, fjukkwit


And I'm not completely uninterested in real flight,
> it just isn't a viable option at this time.
>
Nor will it ever be.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> For what it's worth, I've been known to distract my husband. Why,
>> once or twice he actually engaged the autopilot. (The safety minded
>> among you will be happy to know it was in IMC, there was no
>> opportunity to be looking for other traffic.)
>
> Traffic doesn't go away just because you cannot see it. IMC is a bad
> time to be distracted.
>

How would you know, fjukkwit?@



Bertie

[DougS[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with drugs.
>>
>> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.
>>
>>> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
>>> which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>>
>> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.
>>
>
> Pilots, obviously.
>
> Bertie


That gets me wondering how many pilots are actually at the strip club by DTW
(appropriately named 'Flight Club') lol

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"DougS" > wrote in
news:XqWdnXlBhZDytD3bnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with
>>>> drugs.
>>>
>>> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.
>>>
>>>> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
>>>> which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>>>
>>> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.
>>>
>>
>> Pilots, obviously.
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> That gets me wondering how many pilots are actually at the strip club
> by DTW (appropriately named 'Flight Club') lol
>
>

Why do you think those things are always near an airport?


One of our guys got tossed out of the Pink Pussycat in MIA for lewd
behavior. Limbo under that one!


Bertie

[DougS[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "DougS" > wrote in
> news:XqWdnXlBhZDytD3bnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with
>>>>> drugs.
>>>>
>>>> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.
>>>>
>>>>> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither of
>>>>> which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>>>>
>>>> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pilots, obviously.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>
>> That gets me wondering how many pilots are actually at the strip club
>> by DTW (appropriately named 'Flight Club') lol
>>
>>
>
> Why do you think those things are always near an airport?
>
>
> One of our guys got tossed out of the Pink Pussycat in MIA for lewd
> behavior. Limbo under that one!
>
>
> Bertie


There's a Deja Vu in San Diego that's pretty close to SAN (IIRC there's a
Dirty Dan's that is/was closer). But it (the Deja Vu) is *much* closer
(practically across the street from) MCRD and the (now closed) NTC. Nothing
like "reminding em what they are fighting for," eh?

<g>

OK enough noise about strip clubs. But...hmmmm....that could be an
interesting Social Ecology study, wouldn't it? (I mean an examination of the
demographics of the patrons of strip clubs within - say - a couple miles of
an airport. Well, at least the data gathering could be ALOT of fun <g>

[Adhominem]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Bwaahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhw!

I just wanted to point out to you that by responding to MX with content-free
posts, you do nothing but lower the signal/noise ratio even further.

In other words, plonk.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Adhominem > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Bwaahwhahwhahhwhahwhahhw!
>
> I just wanted to point out to you that by responding to MX with
> content-free posts, you do nothing but lower the signal/noise ratio
> even further.
>

Uh yes, I know.

R
This is news to you?


> In other words, plonk.
>
And thus the signal/noise ratio is lowered even further by letting everyone
know.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"DougS" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "DougS" > wrote in
>> news:XqWdnXlBhZDytD3bnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with
>>>>>> drugs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither
>>>>>> of which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pilots, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>> That gets me wondering how many pilots are actually at the strip
>>> club by DTW (appropriately named 'Flight Club') lol
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think those things are always near an airport?
>>
>>
>> One of our guys got tossed out of the Pink Pussycat in MIA for lewd
>> behavior. Limbo under that one!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> There's a Deja Vu in San Diego that's pretty close to SAN (IIRC
> there's a Dirty Dan's that is/was closer). But it (the Deja Vu) is
> *much* closer (practically across the street from) MCRD and the (now
> closed) NTC. Nothing like "reminding em what they are fighting for,"
> eh?
>
> <g>
>
> OK enough noise about strip clubs. But...hmmmm....that could be an
> interesting Social Ecology study, wouldn't it? (I mean an examination
> of the demographics of the patrons of strip clubs within - say - a
> couple miles of an airport. Well, at least the data gathering could
> be ALOT of fun <g>
>

Heh he. true.
I suppose the reason that they're out at the airport is cheap rent.
I don't go for them myself. One pimply ass looks pretty much like the
next. I was in one excellent one years ago, Trader john's in Pensacola.
It's worth a visit just for the model airplanes on the ceiling, the
props on the walls, and the endless memorabilia of Navy aces and the
Blue angels scattered about. Trader John himself was like Popeye or
something out of a John Wayne movie (think William Demerest) and the
girls were all gorgeous and the dancing was as classy as it gets for a
place like this. I doubt it's the same now...


Bertie

>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "DougS" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "DougS" > wrote in
>>> news:XqWdnXlBhZDytD3bnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol with
>>>>>>> drugs.
>>>>>> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction, neither
>>>>>>> of which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>>>>>> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Pilots, obviously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> That gets me wondering how many pilots are actually at the strip
>>>> club by DTW (appropriately named 'Flight Club') lol
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why do you think those things are always near an airport?
>>>
>>>
>>> One of our guys got tossed out of the Pink Pussycat in MIA for lewd
>>> behavior. Limbo under that one!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> There's a Deja Vu in San Diego that's pretty close to SAN (IIRC
>> there's a Dirty Dan's that is/was closer). But it (the Deja Vu) is
>> *much* closer (practically across the street from) MCRD and the (now
>> closed) NTC. Nothing like "reminding em what they are fighting for,"
>> eh?
>>
>> <g>
>>
>> OK enough noise about strip clubs. But...hmmmm....that could be an
>> interesting Social Ecology study, wouldn't it? (I mean an examination
>> of the demographics of the patrons of strip clubs within - say - a
>> couple miles of an airport. Well, at least the data gathering could
>> be ALOT of fun <g>
>>
>
> Heh he. true.
> I suppose the reason that they're out at the airport is cheap rent.
> I don't go for them myself. One pimply ass looks pretty much like the
> next. I was in one excellent one years ago, Trader john's in Pensacola.
> It's worth a visit just for the model airplanes on the ceiling, the
> props on the walls, and the endless memorabilia of Navy aces and the
> Blue angels scattered about. Trader John himself was like Popeye or
> something out of a John Wayne movie (think William Demerest) and the
> girls were all gorgeous and the dancing was as classy as it gets for a
> place like this. I doubt it's the same now...
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
Hey Bertie, you're bringing up some good ole' memories here buddy:-))
The way I get the story is that after Marty Weissman died in 2000 Bob
Stumpf from the Blues got together a consortium of the Navy guys down
there and tried to keep the place open, but it failed. Some guy named
Heckemeyer bought it from the Weismann estate and tried to make a go of
it, but it just wasn't the same without Marty. (Nor could it ever be in
my opinion anyway :-)
My understanding now is that the bar is gone and the Navy has all the
stuff that was there including a photo of Skip Umstead and me cavorting
at the bar.
We almost hatched a plan one night after having a few to sneak into
Marty's bedroom while he was sleeping and put a matching pair of socks
on his feet and take a picture for posterity. Marty had a standing bet
that he would pay any of us 100,000 bucks if we caught him wearing the
same color socks, which of course never happened.
Ah...the good ole days. Trader's was right up there with Pancho's and a
few other "places of honor" I could mention scattered around the
country, but Trader's was and always will be special for the guys who
went through there at Pensacola.
Hell, "Foggy"..(John Fogg from the Blues) became the mayor of Pensacola
:-))
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:38:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote in
>:

>Trader's was right up there with Pancho's and a
>few other "places of honor"

Were you a "member" of the Happy Bottom Riding Club? If so, how about
sharing some juicy tales? Please.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:38:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Trader's was right up there with Pancho's and a
>> few other "places of honor"
>
> Were you a "member" of the Happy Bottom Riding Club? If so, how about
> sharing some juicy tales? Please.

What happens in IFPF stays in IFPF as they say in Vegas!
:-)
Panchos was just a bit before I came along. We had several members in
the IFPF who were and some remain close personal friends of ours. They
flew at Edwards during the heyday that surrounded Pancho and her famous
"club". Most of the "stories" as related to us are not the type you
repeat on Usenet....well...some people might. I won't :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:Z4qdnX4L-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "DougS" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "DougS" > wrote in
>>>> news:XqWdnXlBhZDytD3bnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only a pontificating twit would automaticaly equate alcohol
with
>>>>>>>> drugs.
>>>>>>> Ethanol is a mind-altering drug. That's why people consume it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strip joints contain real people and social interaction,
neither
>>>>>>>> of which you seem to hold any interest for you.
>>>>>>> Strip joints contain a category of people I'd prefer to avoid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pilots, obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> That gets me wondering how many pilots are actually at the strip
>>>>> club by DTW (appropriately named 'Flight Club') lol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Why do you think those things are always near an airport?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of our guys got tossed out of the Pink Pussycat in MIA for lewd
>>>> behavior. Limbo under that one!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> There's a Deja Vu in San Diego that's pretty close to SAN (IIRC
>>> there's a Dirty Dan's that is/was closer). But it (the Deja Vu) is
>>> *much* closer (practically across the street from) MCRD and the (now
>>> closed) NTC. Nothing like "reminding em what they are fighting
for,"
>>> eh?
>>>
>>> <g>
>>>
>>> OK enough noise about strip clubs. But...hmmmm....that could be an
>>> interesting Social Ecology study, wouldn't it? (I mean an
examination
>>> of the demographics of the patrons of strip clubs within - say - a
>>> couple miles of an airport. Well, at least the data gathering could
>>> be ALOT of fun <g>
>>>
>>
>> Heh he. true.
>> I suppose the reason that they're out at the airport is cheap rent.
>> I don't go for them myself. One pimply ass looks pretty much like the
>> next. I was in one excellent one years ago, Trader john's in
Pensacola.
>> It's worth a visit just for the model airplanes on the ceiling, the
>> props on the walls, and the endless memorabilia of Navy aces and the
>> Blue angels scattered about. Trader John himself was like Popeye or
>> something out of a John Wayne movie (think William Demerest) and the
>> girls were all gorgeous and the dancing was as classy as it gets for
a
>> place like this. I doubt it's the same now...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
> Hey Bertie, you're bringing up some good ole' memories here buddy:-))
> The way I get the story is that after Marty Weissman died in 2000 Bob
> Stumpf from the Blues got together a consortium of the Navy guys down
> there and tried to keep the place open, but it failed. Some guy named
> Heckemeyer bought it from the Weismann estate and tried to make a go
of
> it, but it just wasn't the same without Marty. (Nor could it ever be
in
> my opinion anyway :-)
> My understanding now is that the bar is gone and the Navy has all the
> stuff that was there including a photo of Skip Umstead and me
cavorting
> at the bar.
> We almost hatched a plan one night after having a few to sneak into
> Marty's bedroom while he was sleeping and put a matching pair of
socks
> on his feet and take a picture for posterity. Marty had a standing bet
> that he would pay any of us 100,000 bucks if we caught him wearing the
> same color socks, which of course never happened.
> Ah...the good ole days. Trader's was right up there with Pancho's and
a
> few other "places of honor" I could mention scattered around the
> country, but Trader's was and always will be special for the guys who
> went through there at Pensacola.
> Hell, "Foggy"..(John Fogg from the Blues) became the mayor of
Pensacola
>:-))
> Dudley Henriques

Yeah, brilliant place, here's no doubt about it. I was only in it once.
A friend was stationed there and was flying early in the morning, so he
had his wife take me. She sent most of the tie staring at the floor, but
we enjoyed it!

Bertie
>