Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

[Le Chaud Lapin]

Hi,

The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.

Before I begin my exposition about what keeps the plane afloat, I
would like anyone who care to participate in this discussion to do a
couple of simple experiments. This will get us all on the same page
(no pun intended, heh):

We are all familiar with the "blow-over-sheet-of-paper" trick to
illustrate Bernouilli's principle. That trick is actually has more
going on than Bernouilli's princinple, but I am going to avoid talking
about it until we can all at least agree on the concepts of voids and
pressures.

Let us do an experiment that uses not one but two sheets of paper.

EXPERIMENT 1:

Take two sheets of paper. Superpose one on top of the other on a
desk, perfectly aligned. Then carefully grab the edges of the top
sheet with both hands, gripping the edges between your palms, but
making sure to keep the top sheet as close to the bottom sheet as
possible, including the edges. The closer, the better. It helps to
grab long-wise, not short-wise. Try to grab as much edge as possibe.
Now take a breath...

In one quick motion, yank up the top sheet. Watch what happens to the
bottom sheet. It follows the top sheet for a brief moment.

EXPERIMENT 2:

Do the same as EXPERIMENT 1, but be creative. Instead of simply
yanking upward, move in a nice fluid-but-fast motion all around the
room. If you are careful, you should be able to make some nice,
gracious curves, keeping the bottom sheet intact. Some of you might
find it hard to believe, but with the right contraption, you could
actually keep two pieces of cardboard stuck together like this,
dragging one with the other all over the room, even though there is no
glue or any other adhesive binding the two.

There is one important lesson to be learned from these experiments,
especially the 1st. Bernoulli's Principle has nothing to do with
this. Bernoulli's principle has to do with air flow that is
*coplanar* with the surface under discussion. Bernoulli's principle
has to do with gases that are flowing in a direction that is
perpendicular to the normal vector of the surface over which it flows.
When you yank the top paper to lure the bottom paper, you are moving
in a direction that is *colinear* to this normal vector. Simply
stated, if you do not move sideways *at all*, but only outward, away
from the paper, you will STILL cause the bottom sheet to follow.

I will leave it to the reader to explain why the bottom sheet follows
the top sheet. ;)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> Hi,
>
> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>
> Before I begin my exposition about what keeps the plane afloat, I
> would like anyone who care to participate in this discussion to do a
> couple of simple experiments.


Good grief..

Bertie
>

[RandyL[_2_]]

Everyone knows that the only thing that keeps an airplane in the air
is.........
$$$$$$$

> There is one important lesson to be learned from these experiments,<
Yes there is. You are an idiot.

Randy L.
--
"When making an emergency off-field landing at night,
turn on your landing light just prior to touchdown.
If you don't like what you see, then turn off the landing lights."

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi,
(snip)
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

[VZ/res0zhra]

"RandyL" > wrote in message
...
> Everyone knows that the only thing that keeps an airplane in the air
> is.........
> $$$$$$$
>
>> There is one important lesson to be learned from these experiments,<
> Yes there is. You are an idiot.
>
> Randy L.
> --
> "When making an emergency off-field landing at night,
> turn on your landing light just prior to touchdown.
> If you don't like what you see, then turn off the landing lights."
>
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Hi,
> (snip)
>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>

OK -- everyone has been dancing all around this. The thing that keeps an
airplane
up is the WINGS! Once again, more slowly---------the
WWWIIIIIINNNNNGGGGSSSS!
No wings - no flying. With no wings you don't have an airPLANE, you have a
rocket (or a bomb,
depending on which way it's going). Any bee knows this. Most birds know this
and they have bird brains. :)

[Tina]

If "Getting on the same page" means learning some of the physics of
flying, I'd enjoy knowing how these 'experiments' are related.

Are you suggesting that a table top under the paper is in any way
representative of what goes on in a dynamic airfoil?

Are you really educated as an engineer?

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 4, 9:13 am, Tina > wrote:
> If "Getting on the same page" means learning some of the physics of
> flying, I'd enjoy knowing how these 'experiments' are related.
>
> Are you suggesting that a table top under the paper is in any way
> representative of what goes on in a dynamic airfoil?

Well I was trying to illustrate what goes on between the two sheets of
paper, but I guess a table will do. Technically, if you place one
sheet of paper on top a table, and yank up hard on the paper, there
will be a tendency for the table to lift off the ground, but since the
mass of table is so great, the net pressure upward on table is not
enough to counteract gravity so the table remains at rest (actually,
at a quantum level it does not completely "not move", but for our
purpose we can say that it doesn't).

So I used two sheets of paper because the bottom paper will rise.

So yes, I believe this experiment illustrates an important phenomenon
in aerodynamics. It is not the only phenomenon that plays a role, but
it has one, nevertheless. The decriptions of lift that I read in
flight books seem to ignore it. This weekend I am going to download
material on aerodynamics and read what it says.

There is another experiment that could demonstrate this principle more
dramatically, using an actual airplane wing:

SMOKING CIGARETTES/AIRPLANE WING EXPERIMENT:

I would take an airplane wing, and mount it rails that can move in the
forward and aft directions along what would be the longitudinal axis
of the airplane if if the wing were so attached. Then I would take a
bunch of cigarettes, light them, and hang them up-side-down from a
high ceiling above the wing of the aircraft. The wing would have an
exaggerated AoA, say 30%, no flaps, displaced slightly so that it is
ahead of the hanging cigarettes, but so that the cigarettles cannot
touch. The cigarettes would be lit so that stream of smoke floats
upward.

Then I would use a tremendous force applied to move the wing forward
along the rails, say, by linear induction motor, or whatever, to move
the wing forward, being careful that the apparutus doing so is already
ahead of the wing and connected by steel wire to minimize interference
effects.

You would see that, if the impulse is great enough, not only would the
smoke be diverted from upward and moved in the direction that the wing
went (forward), but the hanging cigarettes themselves would move.

If flat pressure sensors were mounted above the wing, close to the
trailing edge, they would show a momentary decrease in pressure.

If flat pressure sensors were mounted below the wing, close to the
trailing edge, they would show a momentary increase in pressure.

After the force stops, there would be relaxation where the
rarefication above the wing and compression below the wing are
elminiated by flows due to the pressure gradient.

In a real airplane, this is what is happening, but because the the
wing is constantly moving foward, the rarefication above the wingg and
the compression below the wing are never quite normalized by to normal
atmosphere.

The downwash above wing is due to air rushing in to fill the void.

SMOKING CIGARETTE/HARD-COVER BOOK EXPERIMENT:

There is an similar, not-as-dramatic experiment you can do at home
that is closely related to experiment above. Let a piece of stiff
cardboard be your wing. Hold it from the side at an angle of attack,
as above, but don't rest your arm on top of a table. That would
create a boundary condition beneath the wing. Light a cigarette and
inverted so that it is the hot part is near the top of the wing, so
where in middle between leading and trailing edge. Get your arm out of
the way of the void that is about to be created. Now, in one quick
motion, move the cardboard forward. Notice the tremendous net impulse
force that is generated on the cardboard. The smoke will follow.

These things are happening in flight, along with Bernoulli.

> Are you really educated as an engineer?

Yes, electrical/software.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[BDS[_2_]]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote...
> On Oct 4, 9:13 am, Tina > wrote:
> > If "Getting on the same page" means learning some of the physics of
> > flying, I'd enjoy knowing how these 'experiments' are related.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that a table top under the paper is in any way
> > representative of what goes on in a dynamic airfoil?
>
> Well I was trying to illustrate what goes on between the two sheets of
> paper, but I guess a table will do. Technically, if you place one
> sheet of paper on top a table, and yank up hard on the paper, there
> will be a tendency for the table to lift off the ground, but since the
> mass of table is so great, the net pressure upward on table is not
> enough to counteract gravity so the table remains at rest (actually,
> at a quantum level it does not completely "not move", but for our
> purpose we can say that it doesn't).
>
> So I used two sheets of paper because the bottom paper will rise.
>
> So yes, I believe this experiment illustrates an important phenomenon
> in aerodynamics. It is not the only phenomenon that plays a role, but
> it has one, nevertheless. The decriptions of lift that I read in
> flight books seem to ignore it. This weekend I am going to download
> material on aerodynamics and read what it says.
>
> There is another experiment that could demonstrate this principle more
> dramatically, using an actual airplane wing:
>
> SMOKING CIGARETTES/AIRPLANE WING EXPERIMENT:
>
> I would take an airplane wing, and mount it rails that can move in the
> forward and aft directions along what would be the longitudinal axis
> of the airplane if if the wing were so attached. Then I would take a
> bunch of cigarettes, light them, and hang them up-side-down from a
> high ceiling above the wing of the aircraft. The wing would have an
> exaggerated AoA, say 30%, no flaps, displaced slightly so that it is
> ahead of the hanging cigarettes, but so that the cigarettles cannot
> touch. The cigarettes would be lit so that stream of smoke floats
> upward.
>
> Then I would use a tremendous force applied to move the wing forward
> along the rails, say, by linear induction motor, or whatever, to move
> the wing forward, being careful that the apparutus doing so is already
> ahead of the wing and connected by steel wire to minimize interference
> effects.
>
> You would see that, if the impulse is great enough, not only would the
> smoke be diverted from upward and moved in the direction that the wing
> went (forward), but the hanging cigarettes themselves would move.
>
> If flat pressure sensors were mounted above the wing, close to the
> trailing edge, they would show a momentary decrease in pressure.
>
> If flat pressure sensors were mounted below the wing, close to the
> trailing edge, they would show a momentary increase in pressure.
>
> After the force stops, there would be relaxation where the
> rarefication above the wing and compression below the wing are
> elminiated by flows due to the pressure gradient.
>
> In a real airplane, this is what is happening, but because the the
> wing is constantly moving foward, the rarefication above the wingg and
> the compression below the wing are never quite normalized by to normal
> atmosphere.
>
> The downwash above wing is due to air rushing in to fill the void.
>
> SMOKING CIGARETTE/HARD-COVER BOOK EXPERIMENT:
>
> There is an similar, not-as-dramatic experiment you can do at home
> that is closely related to experiment above. Let a piece of stiff
> cardboard be your wing. Hold it from the side at an angle of attack,
> as above, but don't rest your arm on top of a table. That would
> create a boundary condition beneath the wing. Light a cigarette and
> inverted so that it is the hot part is near the top of the wing, so
> where in middle between leading and trailing edge. Get your arm out of
> the way of the void that is about to be created. Now, in one quick
> motion, move the cardboard forward. Notice the tremendous net impulse
> force that is generated on the cardboard. The smoke will follow.
>
> These things are happening in flight, along with Bernoulli.
>
> > Are you really educated as an engineer?
>
> Yes, electrical/software.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-


Are you crazy?! Do you know what cigarettes cost these days??!!

BDS

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.

Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
pictures.

-Robert

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
> > don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
> > of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>
> Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
> pictures.
>
> -Robert

What will I see?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
>>> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
>>> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>> Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
>> pictures.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> What will I see?
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

What will I see????

The collective knowledge of the finest aerodynamics minds since the dawn
of aviation. ANA is the "bible" for anyone from Astronauts to Student
Pilots. It's not written for the casual user however.
I'm sure from what I've been reading of your posts that you might
perhaps have something you would like to see changed in the book to
reflect a more accurate text.
If you would like to do this, please email me and I'll put you in touch
with the right people at the Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxant NAS.


--
Dudley Henriques

[John Godwin]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> What will I see?

Lots of pictures which is probably all you can comprehend.

--

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 4, 1:20 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Le Chaud Lapin >
>
> >> Are you really educated as an engineer?
>
> >Yes,
>
> I think some college owes you a refund.

A student's education is not the responsibility of the institut ion.
True understanding has been and always will be ultimately the
responsibility of the student.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[ManhattanMan]

John Godwin wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> What will I see?
>
> Lots of pictures which is probably all you can comprehend.


Me thinks that reply by LCB, and others like it, have Mx written all over
it... :)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> If you would like to do this, please email me and I'll put you
>> in touch with the right people at the Naval Test Pilot School at
>> Patuxant NAS.
>
> Dudley...just what was your association with the school? Since
> you were not a military pilot, you could not have had "Orders"
> to the school. Did you perhaps "pay" your way through the course?
> I seem to remember that there was such a provision at one time.
> Or...perhaps you worked for a corporation under contract to the
> government?
>
> Bob Moore
> Naval Aviator 15753

I am not a Naval Aviator. That title is reserved for the finest pilots
in the world. I'm simply a civilian pilot who happened to be a fair
stick in prop fighters given access. This access has been formed through
years of friendship and involvement with the flying military.

I flew the T38 at TPS under special arrangement by Admiral Francis
Taylor Brown and Tex Birdwell, Cmdr of the school. I have also flown at
Strike Aircraft Test Directorate at Pax as a guest of that organization.
I also narrated the demonstration of the prototype YF17 Cobra for Hank
Choteau's demonstration of the aircraft for the Navy at Pax as well as
narrating the annual Navy Air Show at Pax.

I've also flown with the Canadian Snowbirds as a guest pilot of that
organization doing an aerobatic evaluation on their Tutors.
I'm simply now and always have been a "friend" of the military and
specifically of TPS.

You know Moore, if you spent a bit less time trying to discredit me and
a bit more simply engaging me on a slightly more friendly basis, you and
I might actually get along. I have done something for you I have not
done for anyone else I've encountered on Usenet. After you requested of
me by private email some "proof" from someone other than myself who
could actually testify to my ability as a pilot, I offered to send you a
copy of the official debrief notes written by the IP assigned to fly
back seat for my T38 flights by TPS but never heard from you on that score.
You may still have access to that information if you desire.
Personally, if you desire to see this information, I will send it to you
and seek no further contact with you on these forums.
If my word on these matters isn't good enough for you to accept, I would
see no future in any further dialog with you.
You're choice; you can have the debrief notes, or you can stop this
constant under posting of me requesting backup information on me.
All the best to you,

--
Dudley Henriques

[ManhattanMan]

ManhattanMan wrote:
> Me thinks that reply by LCB,

LCB??? Try LCL.......

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 4, 2:29 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> You know Moore, if you spent a bit less time trying to discredit me and
> a bit more simply engaging me on a slightly more friendly basis, you and
> I might actually get along.

If eveyone in this group would simply take the advice that you just
wrote, I think it would be a better group. I have been here only a
few days, and I count no less than 7 insults by people I have never
known.

I imagine these individuals as being overweight and constipated,
reading my posts, debating whether they should take a laxative or fire
off an insult, the latter choice leaving them in the same state they
were before they read my post.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

P.S. I am going to get that book btw.

[Gatt]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Before I begin my exposition about what keeps the plane afloat, I
> would like anyone who care to participate in this discussion to do a
> couple of simple experiments.

HAHAHAA!!!

Jeez, not again...

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2:29 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> You know Moore, if you spent a bit less time trying to discredit me and
>> a bit more simply engaging me on a slightly more friendly basis, you and
>> I might actually get along.
>
> If eveyone in this group would simply take the advice that you just
> wrote, I think it would be a better group. I have been here only a
> few days, and I count no less than 7 insults by people I have never
> known.
>
> I imagine these individuals as being overweight and constipated,
> reading my posts, debating whether they should take a laxative or fire
> off an insult, the latter choice leaving them in the same state they
> were before they read my post.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> P.S. I am going to get that book btw.
>


A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be helpful
in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying considering
the experience levels ranging in decades rather than mere hours you will
find on these forums.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Gatt]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ps.com...

> So yes, I believe this experiment illustrates an important phenomenon
> in aerodynamics. It is not the only phenomenon that plays a role, but
> it has one, nevertheless. The decriptions of lift that I read in
> flight books seem to ignore it.

Subsequently, all the airplanes are falling from the sky.

I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your
theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.

Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of
collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on
the aerodynamic principles in books, so you're not going to get much respect
here if you want everybody to do experiments just to discuss to your
otherwise-unproven theories. Some people here have built their own planes,
or engineered airplanes, or maintained them so -their- science is
sufficiently proven. All the discussions and textbooks and usenet theories
in the world aren't worth your first solo flight around the pattern. That
demonstrates that the aerospace engineers proved their wing design and that
the pilots here proved their ability to manipulate that technology. That's
what it takes.

About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to
have flown an airplane. If you don't do their math for them just the way
they want you to, however, somehow it's all the pilots and plane builders
out here who don't know what they're talking about.

I think your theory would be great put into practice on an experimental
aircraft. I promise you, if you fly it they will come. Best of luck to
you.

-c

[Gatt]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ps.com...

> If eveyone in this group would simply take the advice that you just
> wrote, I think it would be a better group. I have been here only a
> few days, and I count no less than 7 insults by people I have never
> known.
>
> I imagine these individuals as being overweight and constipated,

What you should imagine are pilots who risk their lives countless times
between wings that are proven to work being told to do experiments by
somebody who challenges proven technology and expects everybody to do
experiments just to indulge your accusation that basically everything they
know about aerodynamics is wrong.

It's sort of like an IT guy telling Marines how to fight a war. Probably
not going to get you invited to the NCO's club.

Don't take it personally. It just is. If you were the first person to come
in here and do it they'd probably go easier, but, alas, you're not.

If you have questions about aerodynamic science, perhaps you should first
ask those who use it on a regular basis rather than coming in an suggesting
their understanding of their area of expertise is deficient. Or AT least let
people know you're a pilot, builder or aerodynamics professional.

-c

[[email protected]]

On Oct 4, 10:27 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> The cigarettes would be lit so that stream of smoke floats
> upward.

Can cigarettes be lit so that the smoke flows downward?

> If flat pressure sensors were mounted below the wing, close to the
> trailing edge, they would show a momentary increase in pressure.

We've been told for years by people who do wind-tunnel
experiments that the pressure on the bottom is not increased. Again,
it's not intuitive. We're feeling drag, not an increase in pressure.
If we hold a funnel (a version of a converging duct) with the big end
to the wind, we'll find accelerating airflow in it, decreasing
pressure, decreasing temperature, and drag that makes us think that
the pressure in it is increasing.
The air below is moving downward, something that could be
measured by an airspeed indicator, but that doesn't mean pressure is
increased. It means that the air has dynamic pressure now because it's
moving, and if it's moving its static pressure has decreased.
Better get building this thing. Get back to us as to the
pressure readings under the wing.

Dan

Dan

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 4, 4:46 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> What you should imagine are pilots who risk their lives countless times
> between wings that are proven to work being told to do experiments by
> somebody who challenges proven technology and expects everybody to do
> experiments just to indulge your accusation that basically everything they
> know about aerodynamics is wrong.

Not true. I do not recall any "accusation that basically everything
they know about aerodynamics is wrong." I wrote that there are some
things in the Jeppensen book that are just plain wrong, as is the
explanation of action/reaction with regard to downwash.

> It's sort of like an IT guy telling Marines how to fight a war. Probably
> not going to get you invited to the NCO's club.

What has IT got to do with a war? My writings were very specific,
involving aerodynamics.

> Don't take it personally. It just is. If you were the first person to come
> in here and do it they'd probably go easier, but, alas, you're not.

Things would go a lot easier if people would focus on the physics and
ease up on the ad hominem attacks.

> If you have questions about aerodynamic science, perhaps you should first
> ask those who use it on a regular basis rather than coming in an suggesting
> their understanding of their area of expertise is deficient. Or AT least let
> people know you're a pilot, builder or aerodynamics professional.

I did. The answer was "yes, the book is right, and you are wrong."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gatt]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 4, 4:46 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
>>expects everybody to do
>> experiments just to indulge your accusation that basically everything
>> they
>> know about aerodynamics is wrong.
>
> Not true. I do not recall any "accusation that basically everything
> they know about aerodynamics is wrong." I wrote that there are some
> things in the Jeppensen book that are just plain wrong, as is the
> explanation of action/reaction with regard to downwash.

Oh, nevermind, everybody. It's the same guy with a new handle. It's
Jeppesen, and, do you have any idea how many people are successfully flying
with what they learned from the Jeppesen books? Are you one of them?

> What has IT got to do with a war? My writings were very specific,
> involving aerodynamics.

What I'm saying is, until you prove your aerodynamics with something more
than two sheets of paper, nobody gives a damn. Here's a hint: We don't fly
sheets of paper or plywood. If you think it can be done, all you have to do
is build an airplane and demonstrate it.

> I did. The answer was "yes, the book is right, and you are wrong."

Accept it and move on. Don't just change your handle and try again.

-c

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 4, 5:20 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
> Oh, nevermind, everybody. It's the same guy with a new handle. It's

My handle has been the same for over a decade.

> Jeppesen, and, do you have any idea how many people are successfully flying
> with what they learned from the Jeppesen books? Are you one of them?

Not yet. I will continue to study my Jeppesen book. That does not
mean that I will blindly accept everything I read.

> > What has IT got to do with a war? My writings were very specific,
> > involving aerodynamics.
>
> What I'm saying is, until you prove your aerodynamics with something more
> than two sheets of paper, nobody gives a damn. Here's a hint: We don't fly
> sheets of paper or plywood. If you think it can be done, all you have to do
> is build an airplane and demonstrate it.
>
> > I did. The answer was "yes, the book is right, and you are wrong."
>
> Accept it and move on. Don't just change your handle and try again.

My handle has been the same for over a decade.

And I will do as I please, thanks.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
>> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
>> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>>
>> Before I begin my exposition about what keeps the plane afloat, I
>> would like anyone who care to participate in this discussion to do a
>> couple of simple experiments.
>
>
> Good grief..

.... Charlie Brown.

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>>> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
>>>> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
>>>> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>>> Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
>>> pictures.
>>>
>>> -Robert
>>
>> What will I see?
>>
>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>
>
> What will I see????
>
> The collective knowledge of the finest aerodynamics minds since the dawn
> of aviation. ANA is the "bible" for anyone from Astronauts to Student
> Pilots. It's not written for the casual user however.

Can us nonNaval aviators still read it? :-)

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>> On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>>>> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
>>>>> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
>>>>> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>>>> Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
>>>> pictures.
>>>>
>>>> -Robert
>>>
>>> What will I see?
>>>
>>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>>
>>
>> What will I see????
>>
>> The collective knowledge of the finest aerodynamics minds since the
>> dawn of aviation. ANA is the "bible" for anyone from Astronauts to
>> Student Pilots. It's not written for the casual user however.
>
> Can us nonNaval aviators still read it? :-)
>
> Matt

Absolutely! Accurate information is accurate information to
all.....well, ALMOST all anyway!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Oct 4, 4:46 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> > What you should imagine are pilots who risk their lives countless times
> > between wings that are proven to work being told to do experiments by
> > somebody who challenges proven technology and expects everybody to do
> > experiments just to indulge your accusation that basically everything they
> > know about aerodynamics is wrong.
>
> Not true. I do not recall any "accusation that basically everything
> they know about aerodynamics is wrong." I wrote that there are some
> things in the Jeppensen book that are just plain wrong, as is the
> explanation of action/reaction with regard to downwash.
>
> > It's sort of like an IT guy telling Marines how to fight a war. Probably
> > not going to get you invited to the NCO's club.
>
> What has IT got to do with a war? My writings were very specific,
> involving aerodynamics.
>
> > Don't take it personally. It just is. If you were the first person to come
> > in here and do it they'd probably go easier, but, alas, you're not.
>
> Things would go a lot easier if people would focus on the physics and
> ease up on the ad hominem attacks.
>
> > If you have questions about aerodynamic science, perhaps you should first
> > ask those who use it on a regular basis rather than coming in an suggesting
> > their understanding of their area of expertise is deficient. Or AT least let
> > people know you're a pilot, builder or aerodynamics professional.
>
> I did. The answer was "yes, the book is right, and you are wrong."

Teh book is right.

Bertie

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi,
>
> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.

If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest that a
proposed answer is in fact wrong?
Crash Lander
--
Straight and Level Down Under.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Crash Lander wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
>> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
>> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>
> If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest that a
> proposed answer is in fact wrong?
> Crash Lander


Hold on a minute. My wife will know this one!!!!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[ManhattanMan]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Crash Lander wrote:
>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
>>> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a
>>> lot of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>>
>> If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest
>> that a proposed answer is in fact wrong?
>> Crash Lander
>
>
> Hold on a minute. My wife will know this one!!!!


Oh gawd, yours too?

If you answer a question in the woods, and your wife isn't there, are you
still wrong? :)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

ManhattanMan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Crash Lander wrote:
>>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
>>>> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a
>>>> lot of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>>> If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest
>>> that a proposed answer is in fact wrong?
>>> Crash Lander
>>
>> Hold on a minute. My wife will know this one!!!!
>
>
> Oh gawd, yours too?
>
> If you answer a question in the woods, and your wife isn't there, are you
> still wrong? :)
>
>

Absolutely! A constant is a constant!!!!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Crash Lander wrote:
>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
>>> don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
>>> of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
>>
>> If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest that
>> a proposed answer is in fact wrong?
>> Crash Lander
>
>
> Hold on a minute. My wife will know this one!!!!
> :-)
>

If you have to ask you wife, then you are wrong by definition! :-)

Matt

[Tina]

On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Crash Lander wrote:
> > "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >> Hi,
>
> > If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest that a
> > proposed answer is in fact wrong?
> > Crash Lander
>
> Hold on a minute. My wife will know this one!!!!
> :-)
>
> --
I would point out the underlying assumption is LCL is married. That
may be a reasonaable assumption -- but don't make it about M Mx.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>> If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest that a
>> proposed answer is in fact wrong?
>> Crash Lander
>
>
> Hold on a minute. My wife will know this one!!!!
> :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

You sold your set of Encyclopaedias too then? I had no use for mine, as the
wife knows everything.
Crash Lander
--
Straight and Level Down Under.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Crash Lander wrote:
>>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>> Hi,
>>> If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest that a
>>> proposed answer is in fact wrong?
>>> Crash Lander
>> Hold on a minute. My wife will know this one!!!!
>> :-)
>>
>> --
> I would point out the underlying assumption is LCL is married. That
> may be a reasonaable assumption -- but don't make it about M Mx.
>
>
>
>

LCL is a rabbit. I don't know about Mx. He could also be a rabbit
according to Bertie the Bunyip.

Are we still an aviation forum? I'll have to ask my wife :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dallas]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:55:17 GMT, Crash Lander wrote:

> You sold your set of Encyclopaedias too then? I had no use for mine, as the
> wife knows everything.

Yup CL... sometimes yer priceless.

:-)


--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:54:56 -0000, Tina wrote:

> I would point out the underlying assumption is LCL is married. That
> may be a reasonaable assumption -- but don't make it about M Mx.

Nope, sorry Tina... that's an incorrect assumption.

From LCL in RAS: "[No, I don't have a girlfriend]."

--
Dallas

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
> Nope, sorry Tina... that's an incorrect assumption.
>
> From LCL in RAS: "[No, I don't have a girlfriend]."
>
> --
> Dallas

Not necessarily Dallas. I don't have a girlfriend either. My wife won't
allow it!
Crash Lander
--
Straight and Level Down Under.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/

[Dallas]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:57:24 GMT, Crash Lander wrote:

> Not necessarily Dallas. I don't have a girlfriend either. My wife won't
> allow it!

Got me twice in less that an hour! CL you're on fire.

LOL.

--
Dallas

[Ron]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:36:55 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote:

>
>"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
>> So yes, I believe this experiment illustrates an important phenomenon
>> in aerodynamics. It is not the only phenomenon that plays a role, but
>> it has one, nevertheless. The decriptions of lift that I read in
>> flight books seem to ignore it.
>
>Subsequently, all the airplanes are falling from the sky.
>
>I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your
>theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.
>
>Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of
>collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on
>the aerodynamic principles in books, so you're not going to get much respect
>here if you want everybody to do experiments just to discuss to your
>otherwise-unproven theories. Some people here have built their own planes,
>or engineered airplanes, or maintained them so -their- science is
>sufficiently proven. All the discussions and textbooks and usenet theories
>in the world aren't worth your first solo flight around the pattern. That
>demonstrates that the aerospace engineers proved their wing design and that
>the pilots here proved their ability to manipulate that technology. That's
>what it takes.
>
> About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
>aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to
>have flown an airplane. If you don't do their math for them just the way
>they want you to, however, somehow it's all the pilots and plane builders
>out here who don't know what they're talking about.
>
>I think your theory would be great put into practice on an experimental
>aircraft. I promise you, if you fly it they will come. Best of luck to
>you.
>
>-c
>

I will first admit I haven't done the experiments outlined in Lapin's
posts. I will second admit that airplanes do fly. Thirdly I will
admit there are many very good reference books on "why" airplanes fly.
The key word here is "why". The fact that people can design and build
a machine that flies, means they have mastered the elements of design
that allow an aircraft to fly. It doesn't mean they know "why" it
flies. There are accepted theories, disproved theories, questionable
theories and unproven theories, but they are all theories.

Le Chaud Lapin has posted some experiments that in their present form
exhibit some interesting characteristics. Whether or not these
characteristics can be extrapolated to winged aircraft remains to be
seen. Certainly further, much more complex, testing would have to be
done. However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic
attacks I've seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something
outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them.
Ron Kelley

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 4, 5:20 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>> Oh, nevermind, everybody. It's the same guy with a new handle.
>> It's
>
> My handle has been the same for over a decade.
>
>> Jeppesen, and, do you have any idea how many people are successfully
>> flying with what they learned from the Jeppesen books? Are you one
>> of them?
>
> Not yet. I will continue to study my Jeppesen book. That does not
> mean that I will blindly accept everything I read.


Wel, if you do ever leave your bedroom and take a flying lesson that will
turn out to be some CO2 pumped into the atmosphere for nothing.
At least your instructor will make enough to supersize off you.


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 5, 12:03 am, Ron > wrote:
> I will first admit I haven't done the experiments outlined in Lapin's
> posts. I will second admit that airplanes do fly. Thirdly I will
> admit there are many very good reference books on "why" airplanes fly.
> The key word here is "why". The fact that people can design and build
> a machine that flies, means they have mastered the elements of design
> that allow an aircraft to fly. It doesn't mean they know "why" it
> flies. There are accepted theories, disproved theories, questionable
> theories and unproven theories, but they are all theories.
>
> Le Chaud Lapin has posted some experiments that in their present form
> exhibit some interesting characteristics. Whether or not these
> characteristics can be extrapolated to winged aircraft remains to be
> seen. Certainly further, much more complex, testing would have to be
> done. However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic
> attacks I've seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something
> outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them.
> Ron Kelley

Thanks Ron.

Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first
few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if
the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of
this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages. I saw
your post about 30 seconds after and concluded that perhaps they are
not.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jim Logajan]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first
> few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if
> the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of
> this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages. I saw
> your post about 30 seconds after and concluded that perhaps they are
> not.

First, I finally found time to read your initial post to this thread. It is
true that all the explanations you've read over the years are not quite
right - that is due to the nature of fluid dynamics. Except for some
trivial examples, the mathematics can't be solved except by numeric
approximation methods. The Bernoulli theorem for example assumes a pre-
existing streamline. It does not actually provide the all-important
streamlines! Otherwise the theorem does take account of all the applicable
conservation laws - but not in a form that can shed much insight into lift
(IMHO).

As to the response you've seen - well, I have some theories but if they are
correct there is nothing I can do, except possibly indirectly. Such as
making this post.

I think for the purposes of piloting that one does not need to know the
Navier-Stokes equations. Because quite honestly the real explanation of
lift is to be found in the differential equations (or integral form)
governing mass continuity, momentum, and energy. All those simple
explanations are just that - simple and obviously incomplete. Rest assured
you're correct in your observations on the inadequate explanations - but
don't make the mistake of assuming a simple _and_ accurate one must exist,
if only you think hard enough on it.

If you are interested in some books on the subject I'd be happy to make
some suggestions.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:1191561472.221396.70520
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 5, 12:03 am, Ron > wrote:
>> I will first admit I haven't done the experiments outlined in Lapin's
>> posts. I will second admit that airplanes do fly. Thirdly I will
>> admit there are many very good reference books on "why" airplanes fly.
>> The key word here is "why". The fact that people can design and build
>> a machine that flies, means they have mastered the elements of design
>> that allow an aircraft to fly. It doesn't mean they know "why" it
>> flies. There are accepted theories, disproved theories, questionable
>> theories and unproven theories, but they are all theories.
>>
>> Le Chaud Lapin has posted some experiments that in their present form
>> exhibit some interesting characteristics. Whether or not these
>> characteristics can be extrapolated to winged aircraft remains to be
>> seen. Certainly further, much more complex, testing would have to be
>> done. However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic
>> attacks I've seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something
>> outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them.
>> Ron Kelley
>
> Thanks Ron.
>
> Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first
> few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if
> the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of
> this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages. I saw
> your post about 30 seconds after and concluded that perhaps they are
> not.

Except we both know that isn't what you are doing.


Bertie

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 5, 1:11 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> I think for the purposes of piloting that one does not need to know the
> Navier-Stokes equations.

That's true.

> Because quite honestly the real explanation of
> lift is to be found in the differential equations (or integral form)
> governing mass continuity, momentum, and energy.

Yes, I agree.

> All those simple
> explanations are just that - simple and obviously incomplete. Rest assured
> you're correct in your observations on the inadequate explanations - but
> don't make the mistake of assuming a simple _and_ accurate one must exist,
> if only you think hard enough on it.

I never thought that my explanation was complete or accurate. I
offered it because, IMO, it has a sificant influence on airfoil
dynamics. But after reading several books that ignore the partial
vacuum, and one book that was wrongly employing Newton's thereom...
[which is intolerable on any grounds, let alone aerodynamics], I had
to read more.

In his book, "The Proficient Pilot", on page 8, Barry Schiff writes:

"There is, for example, this amusing fable: 'Air flowing above the
wing has a greater distance to travel (because of camber) than air
flowing beneath the wing. Therefore, air above the wing must travel
faster so as to arrive at the wing's trailing edge at the same time as
air flowing underneath. This is pure nonsense."

In his book Learning to Fly With Rod Machado, on page 70, Rod Machado
writes:

"Because air flowing over the wing bends, it is forced to travel a
greater distance than the air flowing underneath. Because it travels a
greater distance, the bent air must move faster on its journey over
the wing. It's this relative increase in wind speed above the wing
that lowers pressure and productes lift."

Since I was new to piloting, I asked a few pilots if they understood
aerodynamics about an airfoil, and they all said yes. The reason they
gave is the one that Rod Machado gave. I asked the older pilots if
they knew who Barry Schiff was, and they said yes. I asked them if
they realized that Barry Schiff did not think that was the reason, and
they said I was mistaken, that Barry Schiff would never be as confused
as I seemed to be about flying. I asked them if they knew who Rod
Machado was. They said yes. I asked them if they thought that Rod
Machado and Barry Schiff would agree. They said yes. I asked them if
they were 100% certain, and they said yes.

Thus began my earnest interest in aerodynamics. I had always been
interested in flying, but this accelerated the interest quite a bit.

I took a sheet of paper and blew over it, the trick that we've all
done, and it went up of course, but I suspected that the reason it
went up was not the reason that was being given by so many people.

I visited a few aero/astro departments online, and while no one is
going to argue with the mathematics of field theory...I did get the
feeling that there were experts in the field saying the opposite
things. So before digging into the math [afterall, there is nothing
wrong with math], I decided to refresh my understanding of Bernoulli's
theorem from my old physics book, and while reading that book, it
occured to me that Barry Schiff's view is more likely right than
not...that is, until I read his explanation of relationship between
Newton and downwash on the next 2 pages of his book. I found a couple
of other books that gave the explanation of downwash that was
similar. Most importantly, I also notice that there was a ***HUGE***
amount of hand-waving going on, far more than one would expect in a
field that has been researched for over a century. I still need to
find a book that I can trust.

I went to the WWW and started reading more aero-astro excerpts, and
concluded that not only is theory still in flux, the experts do not
even agree on the basics. The very basics. Huge amounts of money had
been spent on wind-tunnels. But after all that, I could not get two
experts to agree on the basics. And this was a not simply a matter of
different styles, using integral instead of differential form of
equations, for example, or, deciding where to put a constant, as we
electrical engineers do in our expressions of the Fourier
integrals...there was *fundamental* disgreement about what causes lift
on an airplane.

I asked one of the pilot's again..."How sure are you that the aviation
world understands the basics?" He said he was very sure. He started
rattling off things about NASA.

I begin to imagine airflow over a wing and concluded that pinching at
front of wing must be very important, more important than one would
think, reading the explanations. I also concluded that a glider
should have wings that are very long but with a short cord, which aslo
turned out to be true. I then revisited my physics book...and it
_appeared_ that the application of Bernoulli to flying is wrong in
many contexts, but I decided to not discuss that just yet because it
would be too controversial.

I ask one of the pilots if he thought rarefication had anything to do
with it. He said, "No, it's all Bernoulli." I asked him what would
happen if I did the paper experiment, the one mentioned in my OP, and
he did not know, but said it does not matter because a piece of paper
is not a wing and it does not fly through the air. I asked him if he
understood why the paper would move, and he said, again, it does not
matter. I asked him if he saw any relation between my paper experiment
and the movement of a airfoil, and he said, finally, no, there is
none, because it is all Bernoulli.

I asked a CFI one last time, and he too said it was all Bernoulli,
precisely the argument that Barry Schiff refutes in his book.

So I started imagining, with no mathematics, what goes on with fluids
around surfaces, which lead me to these various experiments.

> If you are interested in some books on the subject I'd be happy to make
> some suggestions.

Sure.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gatt]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...

> However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic attacks I've
> seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something
> outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them.

The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

Additionally, there's a difference between coming in and posting out of the
box versus coming in and suggesting that all the textbooks are wrong. If he
wants less vitriol he'll approach our common understanding of aerodynamic
science with a little more respect when among our own community.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 5, 1:11 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> I think for the purposes of piloting that one does not need to know
>> the Navier-Stokes equations.
>
> That's true.
>
>> Because quite honestly the real explanation of
>> lift is to be found in the differential equations (or integral form)
>> governing mass continuity, momentum, and energy.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>> All those simple
>> explanations are just that - simple and obviously incomplete. Rest
>> assured you're correct in your observations on the inadequate
>> explanations - but don't make the mistake of assuming a simple _and_
>> accurate one must exist, if only you think hard enough on it.
>
> I never thought that my explanation was complete or accurate. I
> offered it because, IMO, it has a sificant influence on airfoil
> dynamics.



Ooow! Write Nasa quick! Your research is obviously going to enable the next
critical leap in aeronautical sciences!


Bwawahwhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahawh!


Bertie

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" > wrote:
> The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
> different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.
>
> The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
> the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
> something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 5, 10:30 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" > wrote:
>
> > The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
> > different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.
>
> > The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
> > the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
> > something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.
>
> I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
> I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.

Correction:

Several years ago due to problems with email, I used a different
alias. But beyond that, my aliases has always been the same.

In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
post in this group.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" > wrote:
>> The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
>> a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.
>>
>> The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and
>> approach the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make
>> reference to something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.
>
> I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
> I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.
>


Snort!


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 5, 10:30 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" > wrote:
>>
>> > The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago
>> > under a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same
>> > guy.
>>
>> > The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and
>> > approach the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then
>> > make reference to something from a thread that was discussed a
>> > month ago.
>>
>> I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one
>> that I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the
>> Internet.
>
> Correction:
>
> Several years ago due to problems with email, I used a different
> alias. But beyond that, my aliases has always been the same.
>
> In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
> am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
> post in this group.
>

Yeh, right.


Bertie

[Gatt]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
> am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
> post in this group.

Fair enough. Just understand then that on occasion somebody comes in here
claiming that their physics trumps established, documented science, and
usually these people don't actually fly airplanes.

Of course, actually flying airplanes is only relevant because 1) this is a
"piloting" newsgroup and 2) lots of people come out on the internet claiming
to prove or disprove everything, such as 9/11 conspiracies, but they have
nothing to show for it.

Somebody else posted a link to the SR-71 Blackbird flight manual. I
daresay, the people who developed that understood aviation a whole hell of a
lot better than most engineers, and so whatever science they used to derive
that design (and the P-38, and the U-2) is good enough for me. To suggest
that the likes of Kelly Johnson's understanding of aerodynamics is flawed in
a pilot's forum is going to be met with hostility by many here. Especially
if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people who have
previoulsy challenged aviation here.

-c

[Jim Logajan]

"Gatt" > wrote:
> The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
> a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

What name might that be?

[george]

On Oct 5, 12:55 pm, "Crash Lander" > wrote:

>
> You sold your set of Encyclopaedias too then? I had no use for mine, as the
> wife knows everything.

Unless of course you have a teenager in the house.
Then even the wife has a 99% error rate

:-)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 4, 11:35 am, John Godwin > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote groups.com:
>
> > What will I see?
>
> Lots of pictures which is probably all you can comprehend.

hehehe, that actually isn't how I meant it. I find that many of the
pictures in the book do an excellent job of describing stall
progression. I've been known to pick up my copy and just thumb through
the pictures on occassion.

-robert

[Matt Whiting]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> I never thought that my explanation was complete or accurate. I
> offered it because, IMO, it has a sificant influence on airfoil
> dynamics. But after reading several books that ignore the partial
> vacuum, and one book that was wrongly employing Newton's thereom...
> [which is intolerable on any grounds, let alone aerodynamics], I had
> to read more.

Newton had only one theorem? Wow, I always thought he had several...

Matt

[muff528]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
>> I never thought that my explanation was complete or accurate. I
>> offered it because, IMO, it has a sificant influence on airfoil
>> dynamics. But after reading several books that ignore the partial
>> vacuum, and one book that was wrongly employing Newton's thereom...
>> [which is intolerable on any grounds, let alone aerodynamics], I had
>> to read more.
>
> Newton had only one theorem? Wow, I always thought he had several...
>
> Matt

Not many are familiar with Newton's 4th Law --- "One Fig to a Cookie"

TP

[Mxsmanic]

Gatt writes:

> I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your
> theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.
>
> Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of
> collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on
> the aerodynamic principles in books ...

But they have not built airplanes, as you suggest (with a few rare exceptions,
and even then they did not design them).

> About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
> aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to
> have flown an airplane.

Flying an airplane wouldn't help, although designing one (successfully) would.

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first
> few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if
> the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of
> this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages.

Those who engage rapidly in personal attacks are the most active posters, but
are not necessarily representative. Personal attacks are very easy to
construct and thus can be launched very quickly. Rational argument or debate
is much more difficult.

[Mxsmanic]

Gatt writes:

> Especially
> if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people who have
> previoulsy challenged aviation here.

I have never seen anyone challenge aviation here. I have seen people refuse
to be intimidated by the yelping alpha dogs and playground bullies, but that's
quite different.

[Gatt]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gatt" > wrote:
>> The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
>> a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.
>
> What name might that be?

Don't remember. IIRC he was babbling about how Bournouli was wrong and how
upper camber is irrelvant. Do you remember?

-c

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I am not a Naval Aviator. That title is reserved for the finest pilots
> in the world.

There might be some Air Force pilots who disagree with that.

> You know Moore, if you spent a bit less time trying to discredit me and
> a bit more simply engaging me on a slightly more friendly basis, you and
> I might actually get along.

You dislike personal attacks?

> You're choice; you can have the debrief notes, or you can stop this
> constant under posting of me requesting backup information on me.

Or he can continue to attack you.

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> If eveyone in this group would simply take the advice that you just
> wrote, I think it would be a better group. I have been here only a
> few days, and I count no less than 7 insults by people I have never
> known.
>
> I imagine these individuals as being overweight and constipated,
> reading my posts, debating whether they should take a laxative or fire
> off an insult, the latter choice leaving them in the same state they
> were before they read my post.

They are simply the typical males of USENET who have more testosterone than
intellect and behave accordingly. It is a type of background noise that never
goes away, so one must learn to ignore it.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be helpful
> in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying considering
> the experience levels ranging in decades rather than mere hours you will
> find on these forums.

Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can make claims.
The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate competence, not to merely claim
it. Credentials are a dime a dozen in this venue.

[Mxsmanic]

Gatt writes:

> What you should imagine are pilots who risk their lives countless times
> between wings that are proven to work being told to do experiments by
> somebody who challenges proven technology and expects everybody to do
> experiments just to indulge your accusation that basically everything they
> know about aerodynamics is wrong.

But that would not be accurate.

It's more a matter of aggressive males who are highly insecure concerning
their ignorance of many things and try to conceal their ignorance with puerile
personal attacks. The only words they cannot utter are "I don't know."

> It's sort of like an IT guy telling Marines how to fight a war. Probably
> not going to get you invited to the NCO's club.

What about Marines telling IT guys how to program computers?

> Don't take it personally. It just is. If you were the first person to come
> in here and do it they'd probably go easier, but, alas, you're not.

No, that doesn't matter. The behavior is always the same, and it is as
predictable as clockwork, and as unavoidable as the tide.

> If you have questions about aerodynamic science, perhaps you should first
> ask those who use it on a regular basis rather than coming in an suggesting
> their understanding of their area of expertise is deficient. Or AT least let
> people know you're a pilot, builder or aerodynamics professional.

Using something is not the same as understanding it, as so many accidents in
aviation prove.

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> Things would go a lot easier if people would focus on the physics and
> ease up on the ad hominem attacks.

Not for people who don't understand the physics and dread admitting it. For
them, personal attacks are about the only option.

[Gatt]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gatt" > wrote:
>> The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
>> a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.
>
> What name might that be?

Hey, I found it: It's under the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home
Airport" circa August 10.

The person's exact words were "Camber does not produce lift" and he quoted a
NASA site that contradicted him. He also said
"Many pilots don't understand that angle of attack is everything. That's
why many of them get into trouble in unusual situations. "

I'll give you guys ONE guess who that person was, and you probably don't
need a hint, but he's undoubtedly the most accomplished Flight Simulator
pilot on the newsgroup.

-c

[Gatt]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 4, 4:46 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:


> Not true. I do not recall any "accusation that basically everything they
> know about aerodynamics is wrong." I wrote that there are >some things in
> the Jeppensen book that are just plain wrong, as is the explanation of
> action/reaction with regard to downwash.

Wow, Lapin. For somebody who wrote: "In any case, I have never assumed any
alias other than the one that I
am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to post
in this group," your statement sure sounds AWFUL similar to:

"A wing creates a downward acceleration called downwash which contributes to
lift." - MXManiac

"Hint: the same thing applies to your "downwash theory of lift"." - Doug
Semler to MX, August 3, in the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home Airport.

-ALSO-

"Things would go a lot easier if people would focus on the physics and ease
up on the ad hominem attacks." -Lapin
"Perhaps if they were less obsessed with the poster and concentrated more
on the topic such anomalies would not arise." - MXManiac, 8/4/2007


"My handle has been the same for over a decade." - Laupin
"I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that I am
a currently using ..." - Laupin
"But beyond that, my aliases has always been the same."

(AliasES? AliasES have always been the same? I'm not Sherlock Holmes here,
but I SWEAR you've been saying your handle has been the same for over a
decade.)



-c

[Tina]

Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look at
LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far different
than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics, but
i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct patterns
I'm seeing.

I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak with
authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink. In
this matter the odds are you're in error.

[Jim Logajan]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Most importantly, I also notice that there was a ***HUGE***
> amount of hand-waving going on, far more than one would expect in a
> field that has been researched for over a century. I still need to
> find a book that I can trust.

How much math are you willing to deal with?
If you can handle some calculus, then probably the least expensive book I
know of that may fit the bill is:

"Theoretical Aerodynamics" by L. M. Milne-Thomson.
Paperback edition is available from Dover Press.

> I went to the WWW and started reading more aero-astro excerpts, and
> concluded that not only is theory still in flux, the experts do not
> even agree on the basics. The very basics. Huge amounts of money had
> been spent on wind-tunnels. But after all that, I could not get two
> experts to agree on the basics. And this was a not simply a matter of
> different styles, using integral instead of differential form of
> equations, for example, or, deciding where to put a constant, as we
> electrical engineers do in our expressions of the Fourier
> integrals...there was *fundamental* disgreement about what causes lift
> on an airplane.

I have no idea what web sites you have visited - all I can say is that
there is _no_ dispute among experts on the very basics. Aerodynamic
models are now run routinely on computers - the field is known as
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) - which would hardly be possible if
the very basics were still in dispute!

> I asked one of the pilot's again..."How sure are you that the aviation
> world understands the basics?" He said he was very sure. He started
> rattling off things about NASA.

NASA is an excellent and authoritative source and you'll be very pleased
to discover they have web pages that address the VERY SAME COMPLAINTS you
have about many of the bogus explanations of lift that are floating
around. Here are two of the most relevant pages you should read:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

Excerpt from the above:
"Arguments arise because people mis-apply Bernoulli and Newton's
equations and because they over-simplify the description of the problem
of aerodynamic lift. The most popular incorrect theory of lift arises
from a mis-application of Bernoulli's equation."

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

Excerpt from the above:
"There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of
the theories found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some
textbooks are incorrect, causing unnecessary confusion for students.

The theory described on this slide is one of the most widely circulated,
incorrect explanations. The theory can be labeled the "Longer Path"
theory, or the "Equal Transit Time" theory."


> So I started imagining, with no mathematics, what goes on with fluids
> around surfaces, which lead me to these various experiments.

It is a great idea to experiment - even with things others already
understand. I do it too.

>> If you are interested in some books on the subject I'd be happy to
>> make some suggestions.
>
> Sure.

In addition to the above, there are a couple of other (expensive, alas)
books I would suggest:

"Introduction to Flight" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
Contains a history of the science of flight and also goes into details on
some of the more common mistakes people make in explanations of lift. I
do not own this book, but others also give it great reviews.

"Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
A well regarded, though mathematical, text on the subject. I do not own
this book either, but I expect it is good, based on my knowledge of the
next book I mention:

"Computational Fluid Dynamics" By John D. Anderson.
I bought and read through this book a couple years ago and it does a
great job of introducing CFD. I mention it here only because it is how I
know the style and quality of Anderson's writing to confidently recommend
two of his other books (above) that I have not read! He carefully disects
and explains each of the differential equations of the various types used
for computational modeling, among the many things covered.

[Jim Logajan]

"Gatt" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Gatt" > wrote:
>>> The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago
>>> under a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same
>>> guy.
>>
>> What name might that be?
>
> Don't remember. IIRC he was babbling about how Bournouli was wrong
> and how upper camber is irrelvant. Do you remember?

Sounds vaguely familiar - but no specifics come to mind.

[Jim Logajan]

"Gatt" > wrote:
> Hey, I found it: It's under the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home
> Airport" circa August 10.
>
> The person's exact words were "Camber does not produce lift" and he
> quoted a NASA site that contradicted him. He also said
> "Many pilots don't understand that angle of attack is everything.
> That's why many of them get into trouble in unusual situations. "
>
> I'll give you guys ONE guess who that person was, and you probably
> don't need a hint, but he's undoubtedly the most accomplished Flight
> Simulator pilot on the newsgroup.

Oh - I rarely read his posts, so that may be why I missed it.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 5, 8:31 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> How much math are you willing to deal with?

I am comfortable with graduate-level mathematics. :)

> If you can handle some calculus, then probably the least expensive book I
> know of that may fit the bill is:
>
> "Theoretical Aerodynamics" by L. M. Milne-Thomson.
> Paperback edition is available from Dover Press.

Dover. I will assume it is cheap and take a look.

> I have no idea what web sites you have visited - all I can say is that
> there is _no_ dispute among experts on the very basics.

Well, someone should have told me that Rob Machado and Barry Schiff
are not experts. I did read once that Rod Machado has a Ph.D. in
aviation science, and the foreword to Barry Schiff's book is by Ernest
K. Gann, whom I presumed from his credentials is highly respected in
field. Yet Rob Machado and Barry Schiff said the exact opposite,
Barry clearly stating that what Rob stated was non-sense. Note that
there were not talking about something esoteric how precipitation
beings as condensation on nuclei...they have different opinions on the
most basic phenemenon that _any_ student fascinated with flying would
be inclinded to ask: "Why does the plane stay in the air?" Then we
have Jeppesen, a leaders in edcuation of GA. You would think that,
with such a fine product (no sarcasm meant), that they would have
people whom they trust, experts, at the very high-end of academia, who
could verify what's in the text. But what is in my Jeppensen book and
what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

Now I could have gone to some university in the U.S., Germany, France,
and found someone with stratospheric credentials in aero-astro, but
after seeing one expert say that the other is wrong, and then seeing
an incorrect application of Newton's law (yes I still believe it's
incorrect), I had to put on the brakes.

> Aerodynamic
> models are now run routinely on computers - the field is known as
> Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) - which would hardly be possible if
> the very basics were still in dispute!

Hmm...how shall I say this. It is very similar to what Ron said in my
defense.

In any field of research, there is mind and hand. For artists in the
field, there are those who have a proclivity to use hand more than
mind, and there are those who have a proclivity to use mind more than
hand. In any case, there are typically multiple paths to discovery,
one major path relying heavily on the imagination, the other path
relying on experimentation. Typically there is a combination. Based
on the small amount of the field of aerodynamcis I have seen so far,
and the disputes and inconsistencies, I would not be surprised if
there is an enormous amount of money being spent on experimentation.
Granted, experimentation is very necessary to validate (or invalidate)
what was conceived, but in many fields, there are researchers who
adopt the brute force approach, not completely, but much more than
someone who, lacking $100's of millions in funding would.

> > I asked one of the pilot's again..."How sure are you that the aviation
> > world understands the basics?" He said he was very sure. He started
> > rattling off things about NASA.
>
> NASA is an excellent and authoritative source and you'll be very pleased
> to discover they have web pages that address the VERY SAME COMPLAINTS you
> have about many of the bogus explanations of lift that are floating
> around. Here are two of the most relevant pages you should read:

I will read that...but there seems to be a contradiction of what you
are saying. OTOH, you're saying that there is no disputes amond
experts. On the other hand, you're saying that other people
(institutions) are complaining about the same thing.

> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html
>
> Excerpt from the above:
> "Arguments arise because people mis-apply Bernoulli and Newton's
> equations and because they over-simplify the description of the problem
> of aerodynamic lift. The most popular incorrect theory of lift arises
> from a mis-application of Bernoulli's equation."

Ok, I just read that entire page, and yes, it is comforting to see
that NASA is at least dispelling the myth that is being put forth by
Jeppensen's book and Rod Machado's book. I guess Barry Schiff was
right.

> Excerpt from the above:
> "There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of
> the theories found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some
> textbooks are incorrect, causing unnecessary confusion for students.

Entirely unnecessary.

> The theory described on this slide is one of the most widely circulated,
> incorrect explanations. The theory can be labeled the "Longer Path"
> theory, or the "Equal Transit Time" theory."
>
> > So I started imagining, with no mathematics, what goes on with fluids
> > around surfaces, which lead me to these various experiments.
>
> It is a great idea to experiment - even with things others already
> understand. I do it too.

Oh, I plan to.

> In addition to the above, there are a couple of other (expensive, alas)
> books I would suggest:
>
> "Introduction to Flight" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
> Contains a history of the science of flight and also goes into details on
> some of the more common mistakes people make in explanations of lift. I
> do not own this book, but others also give it great reviews.
>
> "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
> A well regarded, though mathematical, text on the subject. I do not own
> this book either, but I expect it is good, based on my knowledge of the
> next book I mention:
>
> "Computational Fluid Dynamics" By John D. Anderson.
> I bought and read through this book a couple years ago and it does a
> great job of introducing CFD. I mention it here only because it is how I
> know the style and quality of Anderson's writing to confidently recommend
> two of his other books (above) that I have not read! He carefully disects
> and explains each of the differential equations of the various types used
> for computational modeling, among the many things covered.

A lot of J. D. Anderson.

Another note:

On my way to and from a party tonight, I thought in more detail about
Bernoulli's theorem, and I am more certain that not that I understand
the venturi tube, why the fluids, move, the distribution of pressures,
etc. Bernoulli's theorem is, indeed, at work over an airfoil, but is
has nothing to do with the descriptions that are being put forward by
the incorrect texts [really nothing]. All that business about one
side being longer is *not* the reason.

I guess the most important thing I learned from this experiences is
that, if it is true that the field of aerodynamics is fully-cooked,
the experts need to tell everyone else so that they stop printing (as
late as 2006) erroneous information in textbooks about the very
basics.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove
>> your theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.
>>
>> Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions
>> of collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line
>> based on the aerodynamic principles in books ...
>
> But they have not built airplanes, as you suggest (with a few rare
> exceptions, and even then they did not design them).


I have.


>
>> About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
>> aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever
>> seems to have flown an airplane.
>
> Flying an airplane wouldn't help, although designing one
> (successfully) would.
>



You haven't done either, fjukkktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first
>> few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if
>> the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of
>> this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages.
>
> Those who engage rapidly in personal attacks are the most active
> posters, but are not necessarily representative. Personal attacks are
> very easy to construct and thus can be launched very quickly.
> Rational argument or debate is much more difficult.
>



Actualy, with you , either would be impossible.

You have the one redeeming feature of being a reliable target, though. A
bit like a Whack A Mole


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I am not a Naval Aviator. That title is reserved for the finest
>> pilots in the world.
>
> There might be some Air Force pilots who disagree with that.
>
>> You know Moore, if you spent a bit less time trying to discredit me
>> and a bit more simply engaging me on a slightly more friendly basis,
>> you and I might actually get along.
>
> You dislike personal attacks?
>
>> You're choice; you can have the debrief notes, or you can stop this
>> constant under posting of me requesting backup information on me.
>
> Or he can continue to attack you.
>


How can it be an attack if you don' care a whit for anyone's opinion?




You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> If eveyone in this group would simply take the advice that you just
>> wrote, I think it would be a better group. I have been here only a
>> few days, and I count no less than 7 insults by people I have never
>> known.
>>
>> I imagine these individuals as being overweight and constipated,
>> reading my posts, debating whether they should take a laxative or
>> fire off an insult, the latter choice leaving them in the same state
>> they were before they read my post.
>
> They are simply the typical males of USENET who have more testosterone
> than intellect and behave accordingly. It is a type of background
> noise that never goes away, so one must learn to ignore it.
>



Bull****, you ignore nothing, wannabe boi

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
>> helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
>> considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than mere
>> hours you will find on these forums.
>
> Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can make
> claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate competence, not
> to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a dozen in this venue.
>

So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate experiences, but
make few claims.

You , OTOH...



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> What you should imagine are pilots who risk their lives countless
>> times between wings that are proven to work being told to do
>> experiments by somebody who challenges proven technology and expects
>> everybody to do experiments just to indulge your accusation that
>> basically everything they know about aerodynamics is wrong.
>
> But that would not be accurate.
>


Anyd you are a liar.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> Things would go a lot easier if people would focus on the physics and
>> ease up on the ad hominem attacks.
>
> Not for people who don't understand the physics and dread admitting
> it. For them, personal attacks are about the only option.
>



I undertand physics quite well, and obviously much better than you ,
fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> Especially
>> if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people
>> who have previoulsy challenged aviation here.
>
> I have never seen anyone challenge aviation here.

You're an idiot.l



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Tina >
>
>>Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look at
>>LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far different
>>than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics, but
>>i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct patterns
>>I'm seeing.
>
> OK, I had to look at LCL's other posting history.
>
> MX is a failed computer programmer. Does that explain the other
> "groups"?
>
> It's hard to change one's writing style.
>
> MX and LCL use the same phrases and argument progression.
>
> 1) "I've got all the answers"
> 2) "Like most people, especially those who have spent their lives
> studying a subject, you are confused"
> 3) "Here's a quote that, when taken out of context, says I'm right"
> 4) "Here's a stupid and irrelevant question for you"
> 5) "Do your own research to support my claims"
> 6) "You're picking on me because I'm smarter than all of you and you
> don't like it"
>
> That pretty much sums up every exchange with MX and also the recent
> appearance of LCL.
>
> Dollars to donuts they're the same idiot.




I agree. This is clasic sockpuppetry, Tina. Fascinating phenomenon you
really aren;t going to get a better view of than in usenet.


Keep watching, it gts better.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gatt" > wrote

> Hey, I found it: It's under the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home
> Airport" circa August 10.
>
> The person's exact words were "Camber does not produce lift" and he quoted
> a NASA site that contradicted him. He also said
> "Many pilots don't understand that angle of attack is everything. That's
> why many of them get into trouble in unusual situations. "
>
> I'll give you guys ONE guess who that person was, and you probably don't
> need a hint, but he's undoubtedly the most accomplished Flight Simulator
> pilot on the newsgroup.

Bingo. As I said, even without proof, it is obvious.

Anyone else notice that the increase of the chad's posts were directly
inversely proportional to MX's?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> Well, someone should have told me that Rob Machado and Barry Schiff
> are not experts.

It's best not to worry too much about credentials or hearsay.

> Then we
> have Jeppesen, a leaders in edcuation of GA. You would think that,
> with such a fine product (no sarcasm meant), that they would have
> people whom they trust, experts, at the very high-end of academia, who
> could verify what's in the text. But what is in my Jeppensen book and
> what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

Jeppesen probably depends on credentials, like so many other entities and
people. It's easier to go by credentials than to test actual qualifications.
If someone has fancy credentials, he may get the job, even if he doesn't
actually know the answers.

> Now I could have gone to some university in the U.S., Germany, France,
> and found someone with stratospheric credentials in aero-astro, but
> after seeing one expert say that the other is wrong, and then seeing
> an incorrect application of Newton's law (yes I still believe it's
> incorrect), I had to put on the brakes.

Lift is bizarre because it's easy to use and very reliable and practical, and
the overall principle is easy to understand correctly, but it's very difficult
to analyze in detail. But that is true of many things in the physical world:
the more closely you look at them, the more confusing they become.

> In any field of research, there is mind and hand. For artists in the
> field, there are those who have a proclivity to use hand more than
> mind, and there are those who have a proclivity to use mind more than
> hand. In any case, there are typically multiple paths to discovery,
> one major path relying heavily on the imagination, the other path
> relying on experimentation. Typically there is a combination. Based
> on the small amount of the field of aerodynamcis I have seen so far,
> and the disputes and inconsistencies, I would not be surprised if
> there is an enormous amount of money being spent on experimentation.
> Granted, experimentation is very necessary to validate (or invalidate)
> what was conceived, but in many fields, there are researchers who
> adopt the brute force approach, not completely, but much more than
> someone who, lacking $100's of millions in funding would.

Not understanding aerodynamics doesn't prevent you from developing elaborate
computer models, it just prevents you from developing models that produce
accurate answers. Just running something through a computer doesn't validate
it.

> A lot of J. D. Anderson.

Everyone has his favorite "experts."

> I guess the most important thing I learned from this experiences is
> that, if it is true that the field of aerodynamics is fully-cooked,
> the experts need to tell everyone else so that they stop printing (as
> late as 2006) erroneous information in textbooks about the very
> basics.

There are still many mysteries in aerodynamics, as in so many other areas of
physical reality. It seems unlikely that human beings could have gone for
thousands of years understanding almost nothing of the subject and then
suddenly could have progressed to omniscience in a single century.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
>>> helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
>>> considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than mere
>>> hours you will find on these forums.
>> Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can make
>> claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate competence, not
>> to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a dozen in this venue.
>>
>
> So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate experiences, but
> make few claims.
>
> You , OTOH...
>
>
>
> Bertie

I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a counter
statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
>>>> helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
>>>> considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than
>>>> mere hours you will find on these forums.
>>> Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
>>> make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
>>> competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a dozen
>>> in this venue.
>>>
>>
>> So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate experiences,
>> but make few claims.
>>
>> You , OTOH...
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.
>
> He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
> counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
> misinterpreted to boot :-)
> His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
> experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.
>



Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello? ;)


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>
>>>>> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
>>>>> helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
>>>>> considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than
>>>>> mere hours you will find on these forums.
>>>> Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
>>>> make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
>>>> competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a dozen
>>>> in this venue.
>>>>
>>> So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate experiences,
>>> but make few claims.
>>>
>>> You , OTOH...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.
>>
>> He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
>> counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
>> misinterpreted to boot :-)
>> His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
>> experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.
>>
>
>
>
> Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello? ;)
>
>
> Bertie

You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
this guy :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> Well, someone should have told me that Rob Machado and Barry Schiff
>> are not experts.
>
> It's best not to worry too much about credentials or hearsay.
>
>> Then we
>> have Jeppesen, a leaders in edcuation of GA. You would think that,
>> with such a fine product (no sarcasm meant), that they would have
>> people whom they trust, experts, at the very high-end of academia,
>> who could verify what's in the text. But what is in my Jeppensen
>> book and what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.
>
> Jeppesen probably depends on credentials,


Actualy, they rely on pilots, which you are not.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
>>>>>> helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
>>>>>> considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than
>>>>>> mere hours you will find on these forums.
>>>>> Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
>>>>> make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
>>>>> competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a
dozen
>>>>> in this venue.
>>>>>
>>>> So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate
experiences,
>>>> but make few claims.
>>>>
>>>> You , OTOH...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.
>>>
>>> He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
>>> counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he
has
>>> misinterpreted to boot :-)
>>> His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering
assumes
>>> experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello? ;)
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
> this guy :-))
>
I think we'll put him on third. "I dunno" is on third, isn't he/

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
>>>>>>> helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
>>>>>>> considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than
>>>>>>> mere hours you will find on these forums.
>>>>>> Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
>>>>>> make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
>>>>>> competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a
> dozen
>>>>>> in this venue.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate
> experiences,
>>>>> but make few claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> You , OTOH...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.
>>>>
>>>> He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
>>>> counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he
> has
>>>> misinterpreted to boot :-)
>>>> His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering
> assumes
>>>> experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello? ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
>> this guy :-))
>>
> I think we'll put him on third. "I dunno" is on third, isn't he/
>
> Bertie

"I think so" is on third :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
>>>>>>>> helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more
satisfying
>>>>>>>> considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather
than
>>>>>>>> mere hours you will find on these forums.
>>>>>>> Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
>>>>>>> make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
>>>>>>> competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a
>> dozen
>>>>>>> in this venue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate
>> experiences,
>>>>>> but make few claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You , OTOH...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.
>>>>>
>>>>> He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
>>>>> counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he
>> has
>>>>> misinterpreted to boot :-)
>>>>> His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering
>> assumes
>>>>> experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello? ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
>>> this guy :-))
>>>
>> I think we'll put him on third. "I dunno" is on third, isn't he/
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "I think so" is on third :-)


OK, well that won't do. I've never heard anthony say anything like "I
think so"


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
>>>>>>>>> helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more
> satisfying
>>>>>>>>> considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather
> than
>>>>>>>>> mere hours you will find on these forums.
>>>>>>>> Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can
>>>>>>>> make claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate
>>>>>>>> competence, not to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a
>>> dozen
>>>>>>>> in this venue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate
>>> experiences,
>>>>>>> but make few claims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You , OTOH...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
>>>>>> counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he
>>> has
>>>>>> misinterpreted to boot :-)
>>>>>> His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering
>>> assumes
>>>>>> experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
>>>> this guy :-))
>>>>
>>> I think we'll put him on third. "I dunno" is on third, isn't he/
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> "I think so" is on third :-)
>
>
> OK, well that won't do. I've never heard anthony say anything like "I
> think so"
>
>
> Bertie
>

Granted. I think he's much more of an "I know that" kind of guy :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Well, someone should have told me that Rob Machado and Barry Schiff
> are not experts. I did read once that Rod Machado has a Ph.D. in
> aviation science, and the foreword to Barry Schiff's book is by Ernest
> K. Gann, whom I presumed from his credentials is highly respected in
> field.

As far as I know, Machado, Schiff, and Gann are experts in piloting, not
aerodynamics. There is very large difference in having a degree in
"Aviation Science" and Aerodynamics. The former seems to typically
include only one course in aerodynamics and an associates degree can be
obtained in only two years. Since no calculus is required, the
aerodynamics presented is likely to be qualitative and not quantitative.
An aerodynamics engineering degree, on the other hand, is at least four
years and a couple years of aerodynamic courses. Calculus is required and
is intended to impart enough knowledge to a student so they could design
aircraft.

> But what is in my Jeppensen book and
> what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

It could also be considered incomplete, rather than outright wrong.

> Now I could have gone to some university in the U.S., Germany, France,
> and found someone with stratospheric credentials in aero-astro, but
> after seeing one expert say that the other is wrong, and then seeing
> an incorrect application of Newton's law (yes I still believe it's
> incorrect), I had to put on the brakes.

I don't agree with your approach to how you handled the contradictions
you encountered. If you can handle the math and physics, I think you
should move on to that level, not "put on the brakes." The problem is not
one of piloting, but rather understanding the physics and aerodynamics,
so I'm not sure why you chose to post to a piloting group. I would
suggest you post a query asking for authoritative texts and material to
one or more of these groups:

sci.physics
sci.mech.fluids
sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
sci.aeronautics

> I guess the most important thing I learned from this experiences is
> that, if it is true that the field of aerodynamics is fully-cooked,
> the experts need to tell everyone else so that they stop printing (as
> late as 2006) erroneous information in textbooks about the very
> basics.

I do not the fault the experts. They have authored much material on the
subject. But it's a complex subject - just as complex as quantum
mechanics, for example. But some people insist on seeking easy to
undertand or otherwise "intuitive" explanations for systems where
multiple constraints are operating simultaneously. So when explanations
are reduced to comprehensible bits something has to give. I'm not sure
why you appear shocked by this.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" <> wrote

> I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.
>
> He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a counter
> statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
> misinterpreted to boot :-)
> His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
> experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.

What else do you expect for MX's sock puppet?

THAT says it all.

Why everyone continues any conversation with either of them is the question
that is beyond MY understanding.
--
Jim in NC

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
As far as I know, Machado, Schiff, and Gann are experts in piloting,
not
> aerodynamics. There is very large difference in having a degree in
> "Aviation Science" and Aerodynamics. The former seems to typically
> include only one course in aerodynamics and an associates degree can be
> obtained in only two years. Since no calculus is required, the
> aerodynamics presented is likely to be qualitative and not quantitative.
> An aerodynamics engineering degree, on the other hand, is at least four
> years and a couple years of aerodynamic courses. Calculus is required and
> is intended to impart enough knowledge to a student so they could design
> aircraft.

Hmm....do you think then that it is reasonable to expect a person with
Ph.D. in aviation science (that's what I read somewhere) to know what
causes lift on an airplane, without math?

> > But what is in my Jeppensen book and
> > what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.
>
> It could also be considered incomplete, rather than outright wrong.

In this case, it is outright wrong. I have the book here with me. I
can retype the entire section, the copy and paste from the NASA link
that you gave earlier, and it will be plainly obvious that two
descriptions are polar opposites.

> I don't agree with your approach to how you handled the contradictions
> you encountered. If you can handle the math and physics, I think you
> should move on to that level, not "put on the brakes." The problem is not
> one of piloting, but rather understanding the physics and aerodynamics,
> so I'm not sure why you chose to post to a piloting group. I would
> suggest you post a query asking for authoritative texts and material to
> one or more of these groups:

By "putting on the brakes", I mean that I stopped reading books that
seem to have erroneous explanations of what causes lift.

> sci.physics
> sci.mech.fluids
> sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
> sci.aeronautics

I thought about the fluids group, but I thought this group might be a
bit open-minded. Not to say that the fluid dynamicists are not open-
minded, but..after all, unless Jeppesen has fluid-dynamicists on
staff, it is they who started promulgating wrong information in the
first place. Also, if there are scientists lurking in the room who
are thorougly convinced that the NASA article, for example, is
wrong...there might be a tendency to ask me questions like:

1. "Do you have any experience in fluid dynamics?"
2. "Do you understand more than high school math?"
3. "Are you really trained as an engineeer?"

I thought I could avoid all of that by presenting a qualitative
exposition, without the numbers first, to an audience that is almost
guaranteed to have visceral experiences with the descriptions, then,
if there was something more to discuss, move on to rigorous
exploration. I barely got past the double-sheet-of-paper experiment.

> I do not the fault the experts. They have authored much material on the
> subject. But it's a complex subject - just as complex as quantum
> mechanics, for example. But some people insist on seeking easy to
> undertand or otherwise "intuitive" explanations for systems where
> multiple constraints are operating simultaneously. So when explanations
> are reduced to comprehensible bits something has to give. I'm not sure
> why you appear shocked by this.

Hmm...I guess that's fair enough. Bernoulli, IMO, is at play above the
wing, but as the NASA article pointed out, it has nothing to do with
the description given by Jeppensen or even an online aero-astro text I
was reading yesterday. I guess it is possible that, a long time ago,
during a conference, someone mentioned Bernoulli and above-the-wing in
same sentence, and people started printing untruth. So maybe the
truth has always been known. But so far, the vast majority of
textbooks I see have printed the opposite of what that NASA article is
saying.

That downwash-Newton-thing, is simply inexcusable. Newton's law of
reciprocity is not complicated at all. Someone who understands this
law could look at the the description and see that it is incorrect
while understanding essentially zero about aerodynamics.

I just realized that when I take my KT, there is a good chance that
there will be a question that asks about the theory of lift. If that
NASA article is correct, there will be a small white lie for the
points.

Also, since you are the one who posted the NASA link, I have two
questions:

1. Do you understand thoroughly NASA's explanation why they think the
other authors are wrong?
2. Do you agree with them?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" <> wrote
>
>> I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.
>>
>> He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a counter
>> statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
>> misinterpreted to boot :-)
>> His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
>> experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.
>
> What else do you expect for MX's sock puppet?
>
> THAT says it all.
>
> Why everyone continues any conversation with either of them is the question
> that is beyond MY understanding.

If you noticed, my posts are always directed to third parties dealing
with this person. I actually don't post to him directly feeling no
desire to do so. This style is my choice on how to deal with the situation.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> As far as I know, Machado, Schiff, and Gann are experts in piloting,
> not
>> aerodynamics. There is very large difference in having a degree in
>> "Aviation Science" and Aerodynamics. The former seems to typically
>> include only one course in aerodynamics and an associates degree can
>> be obtained in only two years. Since no calculus is required, the
>> aerodynamics presented is likely to be qualitative and not
>> quantitative. An aerodynamics engineering degree, on the other hand,
>> is at least four years and a couple years of aerodynamic courses.
>> Calculus is required and is intended to impart enough knowledge to a
>> student so they could design aircraft.
>
> Hmm....do you think then that it is reasonable to expect a person with
> Ph.D. in aviation science (that's what I read somewhere) to know what
> causes lift on an airplane, without math?
>
>> > But what is in my Jeppensen book and
>> > what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.
>>
>> It could also be considered incomplete, rather than outright wrong.
>
> In this case, it is outright wrong. I have the book here with me. I
> can retype the entire section, the copy and paste from the NASA link
> that you gave earlier, and it will be plainly obvious that two
> descriptions are polar opposites.
>
>> I don't agree with your approach to how you handled the
>> contradictions you encountered. If you can handle the math and
>> physics, I think you should move on to that level, not "put on the
>> brakes." The problem is not one of piloting, but rather understanding
>> the physics and aerodynamics, so I'm not sure why you chose to post
>> to a piloting group. I would suggest you post a query asking for
>> authoritative texts and material to one or more of these groups:
>
> By "putting on the brakes", I mean that I stopped reading books that
> seem to have erroneous explanations of what causes lift.
>
>> sci.physics
>> sci.mech.fluids
>> sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
>> sci.aeronautics
>
> I thought about the fluids group, but I thought this group might be a
> bit open-minded. Not to say that the fluid dynamicists are not open-
> minded, but..after all, unless Jeppesen has fluid-dynamicists on
> staff, it is they who started promulgating wrong information in the
> first place. Also, if there are scientists lurking in the room who
> are thorougly convinced that the NASA article, for example, is
> wrong...there might be a tendency to ask me questions like:
>
> 1. "Do you have any experience in fluid dynamics?"
> 2. "Do you understand more than high school math?"
> 3. "Are you really trained as an engineeer?"
>
> I thought I could avoid all of that by presenting a qualitative
> exposition, without the numbers first, to an audience that is almost
> guaranteed to have visceral experiences with the descriptions, then,
> if there was something more to discuss, move on to rigorous
> exploration. I barely got past the double-sheet-of-paper experiment.
>
>> I do not the fault the experts. They have authored much material on
>> the subject. But it's a complex subject - just as complex as quantum
>> mechanics, for example. But some people insist on seeking easy to
>> undertand or otherwise "intuitive" explanations for systems where
>> multiple constraints are operating simultaneously. So when
>> explanations are reduced to comprehensible bits something has to
>> give. I'm not sure why you appear shocked by this.
>
> Hmm...I guess that's fair enough. Bernoulli, IMO, is at play above the
> wing, but as the NASA article pointed out, it has nothing to do with
> the description given by Jeppensen or even an online aero-astro text I
> was reading yesterday. I guess it is possible that, a long time ago,
> during a conference, someone mentioned Bernoulli and above-the-wing in
> same sentence, and people started printing untruth. So maybe the
> truth has always been known. But so far, the vast majority of
> textbooks I see have printed the opposite of what that NASA article is
> saying.
>
> That downwash-Newton-thing, is simply inexcusable. Newton's law of
> reciprocity is not complicated at all. Someone who understands this
> law could look at the the description and see that it is incorrect
> while understanding essentially zero about aerodynamics.
>
> I just realized that when I take my KT, there is a good chance that
> there will be a question that asks about the theory of lift. If that
> NASA article is correct, there will be a small white lie for the
> points.
>
> Also, since you are the one who posted the NASA link, I have two
> questions:
>
> 1. Do you understand thoroughly NASA's explanation why they think the
> other authors are wrong?
> 2. Do you agree with them?
>


You don't know enough to decide that either is wrong.

You're an idiot, anthony

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" <> wrote

> If you noticed, my posts are always directed to third parties dealing with
> this person. I actually don't post to him directly feeling no desire to do
> so. This style is my choice on how to deal with the situation.


Yep. That is about what I have come down to, also.

I think "the chad" character appeared, because a couple days ago, MX posts
were getting mostly no responses, or only a couple responses.

So we were on the way to successfully eliminating what a troll wants.
Feedback.

The chad pops up, and many (what I should have typed before, instead of
"everyone") are biting, like carp sucking down fish heads. Sad, indeed.

Come on people! Wise up, and ignore "the chad" and his ridiculous posts.
Don't feed the obvious attempt at trolling.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" <> wrote
>
>> If you noticed, my posts are always directed to third parties dealing with
>> this person. I actually don't post to him directly feeling no desire to do
>> so. This style is my choice on how to deal with the situation.
>
>
> Yep. That is about what I have come down to, also.
>
> I think "the chad" character appeared, because a couple days ago, MX posts
> were getting mostly no responses, or only a couple responses.
>
> So we were on the way to successfully eliminating what a troll wants.
> Feedback.
>
> The chad pops up, and many (what I should have typed before, instead of
> "everyone") are biting, like carp sucking down fish heads. Sad, indeed.
>
> Come on people! Wise up, and ignore "the chad" and his ridiculous posts.
> Don't feed the obvious attempt at trolling.

Apparently I don't take either the troll situation or the forum for that
matter as seriously as some other people on the group.
Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to be
handled as individuals see fit.
The problem with actively attempting to control this issue by posting
advice and lecturing people on what they should be doing to handle it is
that before you know it, the "suggestion and lecture posts" become as
much a problem or even more of a problem than the issue they are
attempting to address.
I personally try and avoid direct contact with those on Usenet I
disaprove of for some reason.
Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture
destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control
on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" <> wrote

> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
> to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture destined
> to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control on the
> forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.

It is on this premise where we part ways.

I have no problem with ignoring the occasional hit and run troll, and
ignoring the people that continue to enable him.

When one comes and dominates the group for as long as this one has, and many
people (good people) leave because of it, (and they have left this group in
droves) something needs to be done.

I may be tilting at windmills, but I've always been the type to be prone to
do a little of that. I feel some people need encouragement to change their
views on handling a troll, just as much as you feel the need to encourage
people to change how they fly so they are safe.

I may fail, or become a pain in the butt to some, but I have to try, or I
would not be true to myself. I can live with trying and still failing, but
can not live with not trying.

Such it is in life.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
> to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture
> destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control
> on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.

Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
ways to respond to a troll.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" <> wrote

> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
> ways to respond to a troll.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?

Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?
--
Jim in NC

[Ron]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 08:02:48 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote:

>
>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
>> However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic attacks I've
>> seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something
>> outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them.
>
>The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under a
>different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.
>
>The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and approach
>the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make reference to
>something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.
>
>Additionally, there's a difference between coming in and posting out of the
>box versus coming in and suggesting that all the textbooks are wrong. If he
>wants less vitriol he'll approach our common understanding of aerodynamic
>science with a little more respect when among our own community.
>
>-c
>

I've monitored this group for several years and contributed a little
now and then. I don't recall a previous post on this subject, but
then I don't read every post either, so it may have slipped past me.
If I've responded to a troll I apologize to the group. However, based
on his OP, he doesn't sound like a troll... he sounds like he
genuinely has some questions on the established theory of flight and
has suggested alternatives by his rudimentary experiments. I thought
the OP was meant to stimulate discussion. It seems it has, along with
some of the aforementioned vitriol.

I'm not sure claiming some of the textbooks are wrong isn't true.
Certainly NASA thinks so. I don't think they are *all* wrong, but
clearly some have misused the theories on why airplanes fly. I guess
we could kick this around for years and not come to agreement. After
all, the argument has been going on since the Wright brothers.

Ron

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" <> wrote
>
>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
>> to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture destined
>> to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control on the
>> forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>
> It is on this premise where we part ways.
>
> I have no problem with ignoring the occasional hit and run troll, and
> ignoring the people that continue to enable him.
>
> When one comes and dominates the group for as long as this one has, and many
> people (good people) leave because of it, (and they have left this group in
> droves) something needs to be done.
>
> I may be tilting at windmills, but I've always been the type to be prone to
> do a little of that. I feel some people need encouragement to change their
> views on handling a troll, just as much as you feel the need to encourage
> people to change how they fly so they are safe.
>
> I may fail, or become a pain in the butt to some, but I have to try, or I
> would not be true to myself. I can live with trying and still failing, but
> can not live with not trying.
>
> Such it is in life.

I think Dudley is correct, but I also believe that "All that is
necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". However,
on usenet, there really isn't much that can be done. I just killfile
the pests and let the technology take care of it. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
>> to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture
>> destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control
>> on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>
> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
> ways to respond to a troll.
>

I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless discourse.
Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by
>>> trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
>>> venture destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting
>>> this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>>
>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>
>
> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
> discourse.
> Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.


Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice in
wonerland.

Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and nurture
them.


Care for your trolls and the rewards are great.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by
>>>> trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
>>>> venture destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting
>>>> this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>
>> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
>> discourse.
>> Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
>> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
>
>
> Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice in
> wonerland.
>
> Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and nurture
> them.

If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things to do
than entertain trolls! :-)

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by
>>>>> trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
>>>>> venture destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting
>>>>> this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>
>>> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
>>> discourse.
>>> Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
>>> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice in
>> wonerland.
>>
>> Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
>> nurture them.
>
> If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things to
> do than entertain trolls! :-)
>
> Matt
>

Apparently not!


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" <> wrote
>
>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
>> to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture destined
>> to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control on the
>> forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>
> It is on this premise where we part ways.
>
> I have no problem with ignoring the occasional hit and run troll, and
> ignoring the people that continue to enable him.
>
> When one comes and dominates the group for as long as this one has, and many
> people (good people) leave because of it, (and they have left this group in
> droves) something needs to be done.
>
> I may be tilting at windmills, but I've always been the type to be prone to
> do a little of that. I feel some people need encouragement to change their
> views on handling a troll, just as much as you feel the need to encourage
> people to change how they fly so they are safe.
>
> I may fail, or become a pain in the butt to some, but I have to try, or I
> would not be true to myself. I can live with trying and still failing, but
> can not live with not trying.
>
> Such it is in life.


No problem at all. Departure and/or diversity are what Usenet is all about.
We'll meet again someday on some other issue I'm sure
All the best.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by
>>>>>> trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
>>>>>> venture destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting
>>>>>> this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>>>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
>>>> discourse.
>>>> Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
>>>> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice in
>>> wonerland.
>>>
>>> Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
>>> nurture them.
>> If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things to
>> do than entertain trolls! :-)
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Apparently not!
>
>
> Bertie

Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:X7WNi.222$2n4.16415
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll
by
>>>>>>> trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
>>>>>>> venture destined to failure as in many cases the person
attempting
>>>>>>> this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
worst
>>>>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
>>>>> discourse.
>>>>> Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most
likely
>>>>> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice
in
>>>> wonerland.
>>>>
>>>> Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
>>>> nurture them.
>>> If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things
to
>>> do than entertain trolls! :-)
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>> Apparently not!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!
>

Took you long enough.


I'm a troll and a half. That means I'm three trolls for the price of
two! Or five for three, Sale ends this week. Supplies limited

Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> >> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
> >> to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture
> >> destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control
> >> on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
> >
> > Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
> > ways to respond to a troll.
> >
>
> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless discourse.
> Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.

For the record: ignoring is NOT surrender. Surrender is when you
don't even try to ignore the troll, and even worse pooh-pooh the
whole idea of killfiling the troll.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Morgans" >
wrote:

> > Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
> > ways to respond to a troll.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
>
> What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?
>
> Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?

No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
killfiling a troll.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by
>>>>>>> trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
>>>>>>> venture destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting
>>>>>>> this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>>>>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
>>>>> discourse. Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and
>>>>> most likely
>>>>> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice in
>>>> wonerland.
>>>> Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
>>>> nurture them.
>>> If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things to
>>> do than entertain trolls! :-)
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>> Apparently not!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!

Bertie has his troll moments and he has his serious moments. I find
Bertie a regular guy who doesn't suffer fools very long.

No one knows exactly who he is or where he's from, but my experience
with him has been that he not only knows his way around a cockpit but
can be a friend to those who just leave him alone on the troll issue and
deal with him seriously on flying and aviation issues.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll
by
>>>>>>>> trying to control how others deal with that troll is a
fruitless
>>>>>>>> venture destined to failure as in many cases the person
attempting
>>>>>>>> this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll
themselves.
>>>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
worst
>>>>>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
>>>>>> discourse. Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most
and
>>>>>> most likely
>>>>>> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice
in
>>>>> wonerland.
>>>>> Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
>>>>> nurture them.
>>>> If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things
to
>>>> do than entertain trolls! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently not!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!
>
> Bertie has his troll moments and he has his serious moments. I find
> Bertie a regular guy who doesn't suffer fools very long.
>
> No one knows exactly who he is or where he's from, but my experience
> with him has been that he not only knows his way around a cockpit but
> can be a friend to those who just leave him alone on the troll issue
and
> deal with him seriously on flying and aviation issues.
>

Pretty much the way it is. I have often posted ( and still do
occasionally) under a different 'nym for serious stuff, but have
admittedly gotten lazy about that lately.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, "Morgans" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>> I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
>>
>> What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?
>>
>> Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?
>
> No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
> killfiling a troll.
>

Not so at all. Please re-read the following line from my post on the issue;

>Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to be
>handled as individuals see fit.

Is there something about this comment you don't understand?

Trolls and just who is and isn't a troll are subject to individual
interpretation as such. Therefore it is simply my opinion that any
action taken to "handle" or "not handle" these people should simply be
left to the individual to decide.

If kill filing someone is your thing, by all means have at it.
Personally I find people who constantly gripe and **** and moan about
who's top posting, bottom posting, and insertion posting, and taking
people to task on this issue the perfect troll on any newsgroup!
DH


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll
> by
>>>>>>>>> trying to control how others deal with that troll is a
> fruitless
>>>>>>>>> venture destined to failure as in many cases the person
> attempting
>>>>>>>>> this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll
> themselves.
>>>>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
> worst
>>>>>>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
>>>>>>> discourse. Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most
> and
>>>>>>> most likely
>>>>>>> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
>>>>>> Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice
> in
>>>>>> wonerland.
>>>>>> Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
>>>>>> nurture them.
>>>>> If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things
> to
>>>>> do than entertain trolls! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>> Apparently not!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!
>> Bertie has his troll moments and he has his serious moments. I find
>> Bertie a regular guy who doesn't suffer fools very long.
>>
>> No one knows exactly who he is or where he's from, but my experience
>> with him has been that he not only knows his way around a cockpit but
>> can be a friend to those who just leave him alone on the troll issue
> and
>> deal with him seriously on flying and aviation issues.
>>
>
> Pretty much the way it is. I have often posted ( and still do
> occasionally) under a different 'nym for serious stuff, but have
> admittedly gotten lazy about that lately.
>
>
> Bertie
>

No sweat. Anyone with half a brain should be able to tell the difference
anyway :-))
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>>> Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
>>>> to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture
>>>> destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control
>>>> on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>
>> I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless discourse.
>> Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
>> cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
>
> For the record: ignoring is NOT surrender. Surrender is when you
> don't even try to ignore the troll, and even worse pooh-pooh the
> whole idea of killfiling the troll.
>

Suggesting people ignore a troll (which is my well known stance on the
issue BTW) is NOT as you say "pooh-poohing" the whole idea of kill
filing a troll. It merely means that ignoring a troll is a more
PREFERRED METHOD of handling the situation as opposed to kill filing people.
If kill filing is your thing, be my guest! I certainly have no objection.
PLEASE....begin with me!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Hmm....do you think then that it is reasonable to expect a person with
> Ph.D. in aviation science (that's what I read somewhere) to know what
> causes lift on an airplane, without math?

1) Rod Machado does not appear to have a Ph.D. He claims many things and
if he had one I'm sure he would say so. He's not shy about his
accomplishments. Here is the bio on his web site:
http://www.rodmachado.com/Bio/Bio.html

2) If you want to predict the approximate lift, drag, torques, pressures,
temperatures, and such on an airplane then one requires math. Math is
required to do anything usefully predictive. Since all physics models,
whether mathematical or intuitive, are merely approximations of physical
reality, they all (to different extents) produce "wrong" results. But I'm
not like you and would say they produce progressively less useful
results. For the purposes of piloting I see no value in a precise
explanation of lift - it's right up there with knowing Maxwell's
equations or field effect transister theory before one can be allowed to
use a radio.

> In this case, it is outright wrong. I have the book here with me. I
> can retype the entire section, the copy and paste from the NASA link
> that you gave earlier, and it will be plainly obvious that two
> descriptions are polar opposites.

I don't think that would accomplish anything useful.

Find the contact information for the authors of the book and send them
the NASA link and politely point out that their text appears to
contradict the NASA explanation and ask them if they could either
reconcile the two explanations or if they could consider updating any
future edition to address the issue.

> Also, since you are the one who posted the NASA link, I have two
> questions:
>
> 1. Do you understand thoroughly NASA's explanation why they think the
> other authors are wrong?

First, their articles are hardly comprehensive on all the ways the
explanations for lift can be wrong. That said, they pointed out that
empirical evidence disputes the "equal time" theory and computations
using the "stone skipping" theory don't match observations either. I've
been aware of the limitations of those explanations years before I
located those NASA pages.

> 2. Do you agree with them?

You mean with NASA? Well, I agree with the content of those two web pages
at least. Actually a lot of the material in that series of pages is
nicely done.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>> In article >, "Morgans"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>> I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>
>>> What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?
>>>
>>> Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?
>>
>> No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
>> killfiling a troll.
>>
>
> Not so at all. Please re-read the following line from my post on the
> issue;
>
> >Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to be
> >handled as individuals see fit.
>
> Is there something about this comment you don't understand?
>
> Trolls and just who is and isn't a troll are subject to individual
> interpretation as such. Therefore it is simply my opinion that any
> action taken to "handle" or "not handle" these people should simply be
> left to the individual to decide.
>
> If kill filing someone is your thing, by all means have at it.
> Personally I find people who constantly gripe and **** and moan about
> who's top posting, bottom posting, and insertion posting, and taking
> people to task on this issue the perfect troll on any newsgroup!


Ah, they are indeed the fertile grounds by which the successful troll
can plant the seeds fo discontent.

but the term troll is actually fairly well defined. It's gotten blurred
considerably by newbies shouting "troll!" at various k00ks, lamers and
other newbies over the years.

Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking to
show how smart he is, which is a bit of a strange thing for an idiot to
do when you think about it. It's kind of a Catch 22 for him, really.He's
too dumb to know how dumb he actually is,
This makes him a k00k in usenet parlance,though, not a troll.
I, OTOH, am a troll, though I'm not really operating in full troll mode
here at all. I don't really like to disrupt really useful groups and
this is definitely a really useful group. A lot of alt. goups, like
alt.disasters.aviation, for instance, were so top heavy with kooks
they're a troll's paradise. It's so easy to get an absolute riot going
in a place like that it's just brilliant.

Other opportunities present themselves from time to time where you get
someone that's just aching for a ****ing contest and is so ready to take
troll bait that it all ends in a frenzy that has to be seen to be
believed. These opportunities don't come along as often as they used to,
unfortunately, but still, there's some fun to be had.
In my days as a troll, I've mightely upset some nazis ( who actually
took it real life and painted a swastika on another troll's house) got
the governemnt of New Zealand ****ed off ( google my name and new
zealand for the newspaper story on that) and drove Ralphie Livingston
into a frothing frenzy daily for years on end.

Those were the days.


Bertie
>
>
If you're interested in becoming as troll, BTW, I will consider running
a corespondence course.

[Jim Logajan]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking to
> show how smart he is,

You say that like it's a bad thing or something!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking to
>> show how smart he is,
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing or something!
>

No, i@m saying it's a folly since he's an idiot

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking to
>> show how smart he is,
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing or something!

There are many acceptable ways to demonstrate how smart you are. Almost
every one of these ways involve actually being as smart as you believe
you are. :-)
Demonstrating one's "smartness" with authority in a venue where you are
totally unqualified to speak with authority is I believe the issue
Bertie is discussing here....not to mention the simple fact that what
this person posts with authority is incorrect most of the time.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>> In article >, "Morgans"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
>>>>> ways to respond to a troll.
>>>> I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>>
>>>> What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?
>>> No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
>>> killfiling a troll.
>>>
>> Not so at all. Please re-read the following line from my post on the
>> issue;
>>
>>> Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to be
>>> handled as individuals see fit.
>> Is there something about this comment you don't understand?
>>
>> Trolls and just who is and isn't a troll are subject to individual
>> interpretation as such. Therefore it is simply my opinion that any
>> action taken to "handle" or "not handle" these people should simply be
>> left to the individual to decide.
>>
>> If kill filing someone is your thing, by all means have at it.
>> Personally I find people who constantly gripe and **** and moan about
>> who's top posting, bottom posting, and insertion posting, and taking
>> people to task on this issue the perfect troll on any newsgroup!
>
>
> Ah, they are indeed the fertile grounds by which the successful troll
> can plant the seeds fo discontent.
>
> but the term troll is actually fairly well defined. It's gotten blurred
> considerably by newbies shouting "troll!" at various k00ks, lamers and
> other newbies over the years.
>
> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking to
> show how smart he is, which is a bit of a strange thing for an idiot to
> do when you think about it. It's kind of a Catch 22 for him, really.He's
> too dumb to know how dumb he actually is,
> This makes him a k00k in usenet parlance,though, not a troll.
> I, OTOH, am a troll, though I'm not really operating in full troll mode
> here at all. I don't really like to disrupt really useful groups and
> this is definitely a really useful group. A lot of alt. goups, like
> alt.disasters.aviation, for instance, were so top heavy with kooks
> they're a troll's paradise. It's so easy to get an absolute riot going
> in a place like that it's just brilliant.
>
> Other opportunities present themselves from time to time where you get
> someone that's just aching for a ****ing contest and is so ready to take
> troll bait that it all ends in a frenzy that has to be seen to be
> believed. These opportunities don't come along as often as they used to,
> unfortunately, but still, there's some fun to be had.
> In my days as a troll, I've mightely upset some nazis ( who actually
> took it real life and painted a swastika on another troll's house) got
> the governemnt of New Zealand ****ed off ( google my name and new
> zealand for the newspaper story on that) and drove Ralphie Livingston
> into a frothing frenzy daily for years on end.
>
> Those were the days.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
> If you're interested in becoming as troll, BTW, I will consider running
> a corespondence course.
>
>
>

I remember. You and Ralphie were into it big time when I first arrived
on Usenet. What a hoot that was!

At the time I had absolutely no idea what a troll was. It wasn't till
years later I came to fully appreciate the term and realize that some of
the REALLY good trolls were unbelievably talented people engaging in
what literally could be defined as an art form.
I've gotten used to Usenet over time and have learned how to sort out
the chaff and appreciate the good side of all of it.
Like you, I enjoy specific newsgroups and have found some good people
living on them.......even a few trolls whom I've come to know :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>> In article >, "Morgans"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
>>>>>> worst ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>> I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>>>
>>>>> What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?
>>>> No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
>>>> killfiling a troll.
>>>>
>>> Not so at all. Please re-read the following line from my post on the
>>> issue;
>>>
>>>> Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to
>>>> be handled as individuals see fit.
>>> Is there something about this comment you don't understand?
>>>
>>> Trolls and just who is and isn't a troll are subject to individual
>>> interpretation as such. Therefore it is simply my opinion that any
>>> action taken to "handle" or "not handle" these people should simply
>>> be left to the individual to decide.
>>>
>>> If kill filing someone is your thing, by all means have at it.
>>> Personally I find people who constantly gripe and **** and moan
>>> about who's top posting, bottom posting, and insertion posting, and
>>> taking people to task on this issue the perfect troll on any
>>> newsgroup!
>>
>>
>> Ah, they are indeed the fertile grounds by which the successful troll
>> can plant the seeds fo discontent.
>>
>> but the term troll is actually fairly well defined. It's gotten
>> blurred considerably by newbies shouting "troll!" at various k00ks,
>> lamers and other newbies over the years.
>>
>> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking to
>> show how smart he is, which is a bit of a strange thing for an idiot
>> to do when you think about it. It's kind of a Catch 22 for him,
>> really.He's too dumb to know how dumb he actually is,
>> This makes him a k00k in usenet parlance,though, not a troll.
>> I, OTOH, am a troll, though I'm not really operating in full troll
>> mode here at all. I don't really like to disrupt really useful groups
>> and this is definitely a really useful group. A lot of alt. goups,
>> like alt.disasters.aviation, for instance, were so top heavy with
>> kooks they're a troll's paradise. It's so easy to get an absolute
>> riot going in a place like that it's just brilliant.
>>
>> Other opportunities present themselves from time to time where you
>> get someone that's just aching for a ****ing contest and is so ready
>> to take troll bait that it all ends in a frenzy that has to be seen
>> to be believed. These opportunities don't come along as often as they
>> used to, unfortunately, but still, there's some fun to be had.
>> In my days as a troll, I've mightely upset some nazis ( who actually
>> took it real life and painted a swastika on another troll's house)
>> got the governemnt of New Zealand ****ed off ( google my name and new
>> zealand for the newspaper story on that) and drove Ralphie Livingston
>> into a frothing frenzy daily for years on end.
>>
>> Those were the days.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>> If you're interested in becoming as troll, BTW, I will consider
>> running a corespondence course.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I remember. You and Ralphie were into it big time when I first arrived
> on Usenet. What a hoot that was!
>
> At the time I had absolutely no idea what a troll was. It wasn't till
> years later I came to fully appreciate the term and realize that some
> of the REALLY good trolls were unbelievably talented people engaging
> in what literally could be defined as an art form.
> I've gotten used to Usenet over time and have learned how to sort out
> the chaff and appreciate the good side of all of it.
> Like you, I enjoy specific newsgroups and have found some good people
> living on them.......even a few trolls whom I've come to know :-)


Yeah, some of them are incredible. I don't tend to run with the pack,
but I'm not averse to the occasional invasion of a neo nazi group.
Anthony was actually passed on to me by another troll who figured I
would get more use out of him than most. He's not a flashy k00k, like
Ralphie was, but he is dependable and pretty low maintenance. Someday
I'll get him out on the open road and see what he'll really od. Judging
from this glimpse of his k00kiness with teh sockpuppet I think he'll
really move!

Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>>> In article >, "Morgans"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
>>>>>>> worst ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?
>>>>> No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
>>>>> killfiling a troll.
>>>>>
>>>> Not so at all. Please re-read the following line from my post on the
>>>> issue;
>>>>
>>>>> Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to
>>>>> be handled as individuals see fit.
>>>> Is there something about this comment you don't understand?
>>>>
>>>> Trolls and just who is and isn't a troll are subject to individual
>>>> interpretation as such. Therefore it is simply my opinion that any
>>>> action taken to "handle" or "not handle" these people should simply
>>>> be left to the individual to decide.
>>>>
>>>> If kill filing someone is your thing, by all means have at it.
>>>> Personally I find people who constantly gripe and **** and moan
>>>> about who's top posting, bottom posting, and insertion posting, and
>>>> taking people to task on this issue the perfect troll on any
>>>> newsgroup!
>>>
>>> Ah, they are indeed the fertile grounds by which the successful troll
>>> can plant the seeds fo discontent.
>>>
>>> but the term troll is actually fairly well defined. It's gotten
>>> blurred considerably by newbies shouting "troll!" at various k00ks,
>>> lamers and other newbies over the years.
>>>
>>> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking to
>>> show how smart he is, which is a bit of a strange thing for an idiot
>>> to do when you think about it. It's kind of a Catch 22 for him,
>>> really.He's too dumb to know how dumb he actually is,
>>> This makes him a k00k in usenet parlance,though, not a troll.
>>> I, OTOH, am a troll, though I'm not really operating in full troll
>>> mode here at all. I don't really like to disrupt really useful groups
>>> and this is definitely a really useful group. A lot of alt. goups,
>>> like alt.disasters.aviation, for instance, were so top heavy with
>>> kooks they're a troll's paradise. It's so easy to get an absolute
>>> riot going in a place like that it's just brilliant.
>>>
>>> Other opportunities present themselves from time to time where you
>>> get someone that's just aching for a ****ing contest and is so ready
>>> to take troll bait that it all ends in a frenzy that has to be seen
>>> to be believed. These opportunities don't come along as often as they
>>> used to, unfortunately, but still, there's some fun to be had.
>>> In my days as a troll, I've mightely upset some nazis ( who actually
>>> took it real life and painted a swastika on another troll's house)
>>> got the governemnt of New Zealand ****ed off ( google my name and new
>>> zealand for the newspaper story on that) and drove Ralphie Livingston
>>> into a frothing frenzy daily for years on end.
>>>
>>> Those were the days.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>> If you're interested in becoming as troll, BTW, I will consider
>>> running a corespondence course.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I remember. You and Ralphie were into it big time when I first arrived
>> on Usenet. What a hoot that was!
>>
>> At the time I had absolutely no idea what a troll was. It wasn't till
>> years later I came to fully appreciate the term and realize that some
>> of the REALLY good trolls were unbelievably talented people engaging
>> in what literally could be defined as an art form.
>> I've gotten used to Usenet over time and have learned how to sort out
>> the chaff and appreciate the good side of all of it.
>> Like you, I enjoy specific newsgroups and have found some good people
>> living on them.......even a few trolls whom I've come to know :-)
>
>
> Yeah, some of them are incredible. I don't tend to run with the pack,
> but I'm not averse to the occasional invasion of a neo nazi group.
> Anthony was actually passed on to me by another troll who figured I
> would get more use out of him than most. He's not a flashy k00k, like
> Ralphie was, but he is dependable and pretty low maintenance. Someday
> I'll get him out on the open road and see what he'll really od. Judging
> from this glimpse of his k00kiness with teh sockpuppet I think he'll
> really move!
>
> Bertie
>

He's a trip all right. I wish you luck with him. It's fun watching. he
just underposted me in the sim group on a comment I made there.
What a character!! You have to admire his spunk.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:GKKdncKIm-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Noel wrote:
>>>>>> In article >, "Morgans"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
>>>>>>>> worst ways to respond to a troll.
>>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?
>>>>>> No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
>>>>>> killfiling a troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not so at all. Please re-read the following line from my post on
the
>>>>> issue;
>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to
>>>>>> be handled as individuals see fit.
>>>>> Is there something about this comment you don't understand?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trolls and just who is and isn't a troll are subject to individual
>>>>> interpretation as such. Therefore it is simply my opinion that any
>>>>> action taken to "handle" or "not handle" these people should
simply
>>>>> be left to the individual to decide.
>>>>>
>>>>> If kill filing someone is your thing, by all means have at it.
>>>>> Personally I find people who constantly gripe and **** and moan
>>>>> about who's top posting, bottom posting, and insertion posting,
and
>>>>> taking people to task on this issue the perfect troll on any
>>>>> newsgroup!
>>>>
>>>> Ah, they are indeed the fertile grounds by which the successful
troll
>>>> can plant the seeds fo discontent.
>>>>
>>>> but the term troll is actually fairly well defined. It's gotten
>>>> blurred considerably by newbies shouting "troll!" at various k00ks,
>>>> lamers and other newbies over the years.
>>>>
>>>> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking
to
>>>> show how smart he is, which is a bit of a strange thing for an
idiot
>>>> to do when you think about it. It's kind of a Catch 22 for him,
>>>> really.He's too dumb to know how dumb he actually is,
>>>> This makes him a k00k in usenet parlance,though, not a troll.
>>>> I, OTOH, am a troll, though I'm not really operating in full troll
>>>> mode here at all. I don't really like to disrupt really useful
groups
>>>> and this is definitely a really useful group. A lot of alt. goups,
>>>> like alt.disasters.aviation, for instance, were so top heavy with
>>>> kooks they're a troll's paradise. It's so easy to get an absolute
>>>> riot going in a place like that it's just brilliant.
>>>>
>>>> Other opportunities present themselves from time to time where you
>>>> get someone that's just aching for a ****ing contest and is so
ready
>>>> to take troll bait that it all ends in a frenzy that has to be seen
>>>> to be believed. These opportunities don't come along as often as
they
>>>> used to, unfortunately, but still, there's some fun to be had.
>>>> In my days as a troll, I've mightely upset some nazis ( who
actually
>>>> took it real life and painted a swastika on another troll's house)
>>>> got the governemnt of New Zealand ****ed off ( google my name and
new
>>>> zealand for the newspaper story on that) and drove Ralphie
Livingston
>>>> into a frothing frenzy daily for years on end.
>>>>
>>>> Those were the days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>> If you're interested in becoming as troll, BTW, I will consider
>>>> running a corespondence course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I remember. You and Ralphie were into it big time when I first
arrived
>>> on Usenet. What a hoot that was!
>>>
>>> At the time I had absolutely no idea what a troll was. It wasn't
till
>>> years later I came to fully appreciate the term and realize that
some
>>> of the REALLY good trolls were unbelievably talented people engaging
>>> in what literally could be defined as an art form.
>>> I've gotten used to Usenet over time and have learned how to sort
out
>>> the chaff and appreciate the good side of all of it.
>>> Like you, I enjoy specific newsgroups and have found some good
people
>>> living on them.......even a few trolls whom I've come to know :-)
>>
>>
>> Yeah, some of them are incredible. I don't tend to run with the pack,
>> but I'm not averse to the occasional invasion of a neo nazi group.
>> Anthony was actually passed on to me by another troll who figured I
>> would get more use out of him than most. He's not a flashy k00k, like
>> Ralphie was, but he is dependable and pretty low maintenance. Someday
>> I'll get him out on the open road and see what he'll really od.
Judging
>> from this glimpse of his k00kiness with teh sockpuppet I think he'll
>> really move!
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> He's a trip all right. I wish you luck with him. It's fun watching. he
> just underposted me in the sim group on a comment I made there.
> What a character!! You have to admire his spunk.
>

Thanks! He'll pay out by and by.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking to
>> show how smart he is,
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing or something!

It is not a bad thing if you have an iota worth of a brain. Problem is that
he is totally socially inept, has given enough of an insight to his
personalities that he is probably clinically definable with a couple
different psychological disorders, and tries to act like he is smart in
areas of knowledge that he is considerably unfamiliar with. I could start
bringing up some of the top ten stupid questions and statements he has made,
but that is unnecessary to those that have even slightly paid attention to
his posts.

That makes him a dumb ass, in my book. One that needs outside help, no
doubt.

If you don't know something, you should ask questions, find the answers on
your own that you can find, and learn from others that are knowledgeable in
the area you are seeking answers. Instead, he argues with everything, and
declares the experts with the answers as fallible, and explains why what he
says is correct, even though it is exactly opposite of the accepted
knowledge.

I _will_ change my designation of him, from now on, to an internet k00k,
based on classification advice given by the professional troll, Bertie.
What he said made sense to me.

He still needs to be ignored, and encouraged to practice his "k00kedness"
elsewhere, though. (IMHO)
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>>> Anthony could be a troll, but I doubt it. He's really just looking
>>> to show how smart he is,
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing or something!
>
> It is not a bad thing if you have an iota worth of a brain. Problem
> is that he is totally socially inept, has given enough of an insight
> to his personalities that he is probably clinically definable with a
> couple different psychological disorders, and tries to act like he is
> smart in areas of knowledge that he is considerably unfamiliar with.
> I could start bringing up some of the top ten stupid questions and
> statements he has made, but that is unnecessary to those that have
> even slightly paid attention to his posts.
>
> That makes him a dumb ass, in my book. One that needs outside help,
> no doubt.
>
> If you don't know something, you should ask questions, find the
> answers on your own that you can find, and learn from others that are
> knowledgeable in the area you are seeking answers. Instead, he argues
> with everything, and declares the experts with the answers as
> fallible, and explains why what he says is correct, even though it is
> exactly opposite of the accepted knowledge.
>
> I _will_ change my designation of him, from now on, to an internet
> k00k, based on classification advice given by the professional troll,
> Bertie. What he said made sense to me.
>
> He still needs to be ignored, and encouraged to practice his
> "k00kedness" elsewhere, though. (IMHO)


Yeah, ignoring him can work, but that never happens. Believe me.

If you don't like messign with him, then just ignore him yourself.
I can tell you this for free, though. If I was trolling this whole
group, I'd also be provoking you and anyone else who was continuously
crying about the presence of a troll. Anyone emotive is a godsend to a
troll. Anyone emotive about trolling even more so. A troll can wreak
havoc by provoking these sorts of personalities. This, of course, brings
more people into the fray and pretty soon it;s reached critical mass
with the topic of the group gone forever and the group only exising as a
giant rat hill with the occupants eventaully consuming each other.

I like to think I could have shown Osama Bin Laden a thing or two,
(strictly on a professional troll level, ignoring politics, of course)
but I doubt it.
Anthony hasn't got a hope in hell and he doesn't even know it.
The best thing about a k00k like him is you can tell him exactly what
your game is and it makes no difference one way or another to them.

Bertie

[Tina]

I did some time ago offer the DSM (Diagnositic and Statistical Manual)
as the authoritive reference we shrinks use for characterizing mental
illness.

Often pathological labels are applied if a subject exhibits perhaps 5
of 8 different traits. Mr Mx presents as having more than enough to
earn several labels -- but troll is not (yet) considered a
pathological condition.

It's not nice to use technical language in a lay group, but some
things do not translate into plain English well so you'll have to put
up with it. "Loser" and "Nutty as a fruit cake" are the
characterizatrions I'd use. You can ask your personal psychologists to
translate them.

I know it's common here to question professional reference books, but
we need to use the DSM to get paid -- that's good enough for most of
us.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:1191727340.617845.323680
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> I did some time ago offer the DSM (Diagnositic and Statistical Manual)
> as the authoritive reference we shrinks use for characterizing mental
> illness.
>
> Often pathological labels are applied if a subject exhibits perhaps 5
> of 8 different traits. Mr Mx presents as having more than enough to
> earn several labels -- but troll is not (yet) considered a
> pathological condition.
>
> It's not nice to use technical language in a lay group, but some
> things do not translate into plain English well so you'll have to put
> up with it. "Loser" and "Nutty as a fruit cake" are the
> characterizatrions I'd use. You can ask your personal psychologists to
> translate them.
>
> I know it's common here to question professional reference books, but
> we need to use the DSM to get paid -- that's good enough for most of
> us.

I'm not that interested in Pidgeonholing him, but I think he certainly
dispays more than a few midly autistic tendencies. Whatever else may be
wrong with him, he's organically predisposed towards this sort of behaviour
(as opposed to having had his nose rubbed in his diapers for toilet
training, though I wouldn't dismiss that sceanrio out of hand either)

I am curious, though. I know the left /right brain thing is a bit
simplistic, but what did you make of my post on that?
Or is it outside your area?


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Anthony was actually passed on to me by another troll who figured I
> would get more use out of him than most. He's not a flashy k00k, like
> Ralphie was, but he is dependable and pretty low maintenance. Someday
> I'll get him out on the open road and see what he'll really od. Judging
> from this glimpse of his k00kiness with teh sockpuppet I think he'll
> really move!

Hammer down! Pedal to the metal! Open 'er up! Put yer foot into the
carburetor! Wrap her up tight! Wind her out!

Let's see; did I miss any of the sayings appropriate to the situation? <g>


I can't wait to see what he'll do, now!
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Anthony was actually passed on to me by another troll who figured I
>> would get more use out of him than most. He's not a flashy k00k, like
>> Ralphie was, but he is dependable and pretty low maintenance. Someday
>> I'll get him out on the open road and see what he'll really od.
>> Judging from this glimpse of his k00kiness with teh sockpuppet I
>> think he'll really move!
>
> Hammer down! Pedal to the metal! Open 'er up! Put yer foot into the
> carburetor! Wrap her up tight! Wind her out!
>
> Let's see; did I miss any of the sayings appropriate to the situation?
> <g>
>

nope!

>
> I can't wait to see what he'll do, now!


Well, the sockpuppet is a nice touch and shows he has real potential. But I
always knew that!


Bertie

[John Doe[_4_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> A student's education is not the responsibility of the institut ion.
> True understanding has been and always will be ultimately the
> responsibility of the student.

Yep. And that's one reason USENET rocks.

If you had to accept only truth, you'd spend your entire life seeking
it instead of learning.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> If you don't like messign with him, then just ignore him yourself.
> I can tell you this for free, though. If I was trolling this whole
> group, I'd also be provoking you and anyone else who was continuously
> crying about the presence of a troll. Anyone emotive is a godsend to a
> troll. Anyone emotive about trolling even more so. A troll can wreak
> havoc by provoking these sorts of personalities. This, of course, brings
> more people into the fray and pretty soon it;s reached critical mass
> with the topic of the group gone forever and the group only exising as a
> giant rat hill with the occupants eventaully consuming each other.

I don't understand why anyone would find this entertaining.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> I did some time ago offer the DSM (Diagnositic and Statistical Manual)
> as the authoritive reference we shrinks use for characterizing mental
> illness.

The DSM is subject to fashion, fads, and political correctness, just like
anything else.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> I did some time ago offer the DSM (Diagnositic and Statistical Manual)
>> as the authoritive reference we shrinks use for characterizing mental
>> illness.
>
> The DSM is subject to fashion, fads, and political correctness, just like
> anything else.
>

So you get to change category frequently! How nice for you!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> If you don't like messign with him, then just ignore him yourself.
>> I can tell you this for free, though. If I was trolling this whole
>> group, I'd also be provoking you and anyone else who was continuously
>> crying about the presence of a troll. Anyone emotive is a godsend to
>> a troll. Anyone emotive about trolling even more so. A troll can
>> wreak havoc by provoking these sorts of personalities. This, of
>> course, brings more people into the fray and pretty soon it;s reached
>> critical mass with the topic of the group gone forever and the group
>> only exising as a giant rat hill with the occupants eventaully
>> consuming each other.
>
> I don't understand why anyone would find this entertaining.
>

I know, It's part of wat makes you special.

Bertie

[Tina]

addendum (as we academics are apt to say)

Some time ago someone pointed out Mx on his blog was telling his fans
of just having enough money to buy a happy meal at McDonalds, a
regrettable situation for a 40 some year old ex patriot to find
himself in, in the city of lights. So it occurs to me that when he's
talking with pilots here whose airplanes drink at least 10 Big Macs an
hour there may be some envy in play.

I've had private clients who were depressed because they were
intellegent but not successful.

The real reason for not flying or traveling or being stuck at his
keyboard is likely because he doesn't have the resourses to do
otherwise. If he presented differently we might actually have sympathy
for him.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> addendum (as we academics are apt to say)
>
> Some time ago someone pointed out Mx on his blog was telling his fans
> of just having enough money to buy a happy meal at McDonalds, a
> regrettable situation for a 40 some year old ex patriot to find
> himself in, in the city of lights. So it occurs to me that when he's
> talking with pilots here whose airplanes drink at least 10 Big Macs an
> hour there may be some envy in play.
>
> I've had private clients who were depressed because they were
> intellegent but not successful.
>
> The real reason for not flying or traveling or being stuck at his
> keyboard is likely because he doesn't have the resourses to do
> otherwise. If he presented differently we might actually have sympathy
> for him.
>
>

I've been pushing a theory somewhat close to this for some time with no
result...not even a data point :-)
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Tina]

Mr Dudley, lack of data or even a single datum has not been a factor
in this newgroup, especially when reading the typings of Mx.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> So it occurs to me that when he's
> talking with pilots here whose airplanes drink at least 10 Big Macs an
> hour there may be some envy in play.

I can't even imagine how someone would go about drinking a Big Mac.

> The real reason for not flying or traveling or being stuck at his
> keyboard is likely because he doesn't have the resourses to do
> otherwise.

While there are many things I would do if I had more money, travel is not
among them, and even with unlimited money, I'd still spend a lot of time in
front of the computer.

Most people (particularly older people) don't realize that computers are not
an end in themselves, but merely a means. A computer is a tool that opens the
door to all sorts of intellectual activities, just as electricity is a tool
that opens the door to all sorts of activities both physical and intellectual.

No doubt someone fretted over the time spent by people on the telephone when
it was first invented, and somebody probably worried about the degree to which
electricity was used by a few pioneers in the early days ("You wired your
entire home with electricity?? You must be obsessed with it!").

If I did have adequate funds, I'd probably invest in a full-motion simulator,
since I could fly it without a license and it would require no travel.
Getting a real license is exceptionally difficult in my circumstances (money
being only one of several obstacles), and I don't really desire to actually go
anywhere in a plane, I just like flying for its own sake. Also, some of the
aircraft I like best are so large and awkward and expensive to operate that
even with unlimited funds it would still be too much of a pain to fly them for
real.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I know, It's part of wat makes you special.

I'm not particularly special. The angry young males who engage in trolling
and other disruptive behaviors are a minority. Most males eventually deal
with testosterone rage, and of course females usually are not afflicted by it,
outside of adolescence.

I suppose one could say that I have a more gender-neutral personality than
most, as I find The Sims 2 to be much more interesting than first-person
shooting games (a typically female pattern). But then again I do like flight
simulation, and that's pretty rare for women.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> So it occurs to me that when he's
>> talking with pilots here whose airplanes drink at least 10 Big Macs
>> an hour there may be some envy in play.
>
> I can't even imagine how someone would go about drinking a Big Mac.
>
>> The real reason for not flying or traveling or being stuck at his
>> keyboard is likely because he doesn't have the resourses to do
>> otherwise.
>
> While there are many things I would do if I had more money, travel is
> not among them, and even with unlimited money, I'd still spend a lot
> of time in front of the computer.


Now there's a surprise.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I know, It's part of wat makes you special.
>
> I'm not particularly special.



Oh but you are.




Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> Mr Dudley, lack of data or even a single datum has not been a factor
> in this newgroup, especially when reading the typings of Mx.
>
Tina; PLEASE!! I'm either Dudley to my friends and the entire world or
Mr. Henriques to Mxemanic.
For you, I'll settle for a simple "Dudley"

--
Dudley Henriques

[Paul Riley]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Tina wrote:
>> Mr Dudley, lack of data or even a single datum has not been a factor
>> in this newgroup, especially when reading the typings of Mx.
>>
> Tina; PLEASE!! I'm either Dudley to my friends and the entire world or Mr.
> Henriques to Mxemanic.
> For you, I'll settle for a simple "Dudley"
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Oh heck Dudley,

She is just deferring to your (old) age!!! A very polite lady, raised
correctly by her parents to respect the elderly. You worked for it, you
earned it, enjoy it!!!! :-)))))))))))))

Uhhhh, FWIW, I get the same treatment on a daily basis!!! <sigh>

regards,
Paul

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Riley wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tina wrote:
>>> Mr Dudley, lack of data or even a single datum has not been a factor
>>> in this newgroup, especially when reading the typings of Mx.
>>>
>> Tina; PLEASE!! I'm either Dudley to my friends and the entire world or Mr.
>> Henriques to Mxemanic.
>> For you, I'll settle for a simple "Dudley"
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Oh heck Dudley,
>
> She is just deferring to your (old) age!!! A very polite lady, raised
> correctly by her parents to respect the elderly. You worked for it, you
> earned it, enjoy it!!!! :-)))))))))))))
>
> Uhhhh, FWIW, I get the same treatment on a daily basis!!! <sigh>
>
> regards,
> Paul
>
>

It's AWFUL!!! I was out getting my wife something at the mall just last
week and a beautiful young girl dropped a small package on the floor as
we were waiting to check out. I bent down and picked it up for her.
"Thank you SIR" she said. God..it's tough growing old!!!!!!!
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Paul Riley]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Riley wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Tina wrote:
>>>> Mr Dudley, lack of data or even a single datum has not been a factor
>>>> in this newgroup, especially when reading the typings of Mx.
>>>>
>>> Tina; PLEASE!! I'm either Dudley to my friends and the entire world or
>>> Mr. Henriques to Mxemanic.
>>> For you, I'll settle for a simple "Dudley"
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Oh heck Dudley,
>>
>> She is just deferring to your (old) age!!! A very polite lady, raised
>> correctly by her parents to respect the elderly. You worked for it, you
>> earned it, enjoy it!!!! :-)))))))))))))
>>
>> Uhhhh, FWIW, I get the same treatment on a daily basis!!! <sigh>
>>
>> regards,
>> Paul
>
> It's AWFUL!!! I was out getting my wife something at the mall just last
> week and a beautiful young girl dropped a small package on the floor as we
> were waiting to check out. I bent down and picked it up for her.
> "Thank you SIR" she said. God..it's tough growing old!!!!!!!
> D
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
Hi Dudley

You should be thankful. If your wife heard that she said anything else (like
"thanks, honey), you could be in trouble, BIG TIME!!!!
:-))))))))))))))))))))))

Believe me, I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got a "thanks sweetie" one time,
wife with me. The third degree on that one would have to be heard to be
believed!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))

Paul

[TheSmokingGnu]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>> I'd still spend a lot
>> of time in front of the computer.
>
>
> Now there's a surprise.

Only because he's now surgically welded to the lounging chair his
enormous girth requires.

He, of course, neglected to measure the width of the doorways leading to
the outside and is now sequestered under a pile of decaying pizza boxes
and alternating copies of Playgirl and Cosmo.

We should be so happy, to be his one and only window into the world.
Were it not for us and the utter spite with which he must utter his
mindless rantings, he'd have expired long ago. The man now runs purely
on stupid (a curiously and common energy source amongst the detritus of
his obsession).

TheSmokingGnu

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Paul Riley wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul Riley wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Tina wrote:
>>>>> Mr Dudley, lack of data or even a single datum has not been a factor
>>>>> in this newgroup, especially when reading the typings of Mx.
>>>>>
>>>> Tina; PLEASE!! I'm either Dudley to my friends and the entire world or
>>>> Mr. Henriques to Mxemanic.
>>>> For you, I'll settle for a simple "Dudley"
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Oh heck Dudley,
>>>
>>> She is just deferring to your (old) age!!! A very polite lady, raised
>>> correctly by her parents to respect the elderly. You worked for it, you
>>> earned it, enjoy it!!!! :-)))))))))))))
>>>
>>> Uhhhh, FWIW, I get the same treatment on a daily basis!!! <sigh>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Paul
>> It's AWFUL!!! I was out getting my wife something at the mall just last
>> week and a beautiful young girl dropped a small package on the floor as we
>> were waiting to check out. I bent down and picked it up for her.
>> "Thank you SIR" she said. God..it's tough growing old!!!!!!!
>> D
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
> Hi Dudley
>
> You should be thankful. If your wife heard that she said anything else (like
> "thanks, honey), you could be in trouble, BIG TIME!!!!
> :-))))))))))))))))))))))
>
> Believe me, I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got a "thanks sweetie" one time,
> wife with me. The third degree on that one would have to be heard to be
> believed!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))
>
> Paul
>
>

Knowing my wife, she's just look at me and say, "Forget it" :-)
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

TheSmokingGnu > wrote in
news:VxcOi.4087$44.116@trnddc04:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>> I'd still spend a lot
>>> of time in front of the computer.
>>
>>
>> Now there's a surprise.
>
> Only because he's now surgically welded to the lounging chair his
> enormous girth requires.
>
> He, of course, neglected to measure the width of the doorways leading to
> the outside and is now sequestered under a pile of decaying pizza boxes
> and alternating copies of Playgirl and Cosmo.


Thanks for that. I'm going to have to poke out my inner eye with an icepick
before I can sleep again.
>
> We should be so happy, to be his one and only window into the world.
> Were it not for us and the utter spite with which he must utter his
> mindless rantings, he'd have expired long ago. The man now runs purely
> on stupid (a curiously and common energy source amongst the detritus of
> his obsession).

I know it makes me happy!

Bertie

[Gatt]

"Tina" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak with
> authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink.


*hides behind desk*


You could be correct that it's not him. Similar content and patterns of
behavior, though. If I was Lapin and NOT MX, I'd want to avoid that.

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Tina wrote:
> Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look at
> LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far different
> than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics, but
> i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct patterns
> I'm seeing.
>
> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak with
> authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink. In
> this matter the odds are you're in error.
>
>

I'm not sure of an exact figure by a long shot (someone could figure it
out if interested enough I guess) but from what I've seen take place on
this forum and other forums as well since the arrival of Mx on the
scene, I'd say the amount of bandwidth devoted to this single individual
has reached near epic proportions in a comparison with what otherwise
should be normal aviation discussion.


Considering the above, I'd say as well that having a resident
Psychologist on board with us is not only beneficial to the group but
practically a necessity....pilot or not.
Welcome aboard!
:-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Tina" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak
>> with authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink.
>
>
> *hides behind desk*
>
>
> You could be correct that it's not him. Similar content and patterns
> of behavior, though. If I was Lapin and NOT MX, I'd want to avoid
> that.
>
> -c
>
>
>
He's to dumb to hide it. He's trying to creae confusion by offering
differnet arguments which he'll eventaully tie nto agreement. Fairly common
sockpuppet move.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Tina wrote:
>> Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look at
>> LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far different
>> than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics, but
>> i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct patterns
>> I'm seeing.
>>
>> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak
with
>> authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink. In
>> this matter the odds are you're in error.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure of an exact figure by a long shot (someone could figure
it
> out if interested enough I guess) but from what I've seen take place
on
> this forum and other forums as well since the arrival of Mx on the
> scene, I'd say the amount of bandwidth devoted to this single
individual
> has reached near epic proportions in a comparison with what otherwise
> should be normal aviation discussion.
>
>
> Considering the above, I'd say as well that having a resident
> Psychologist on board with us is not only beneficial to the group but
> practically a necessity....pilot or not.
> Welcome aboard!
>:-)
>
>



Exactly, I'd take issue with you over the epic proportions statement,
though. Zoom has to be the all time aviaiton k00k in that department.
Even I got ired of that!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Gatt" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Tina" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak
>>> with authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink.
>>
>> *hides behind desk*
>>
>>
>> You could be correct that it's not him. Similar content and patterns
>> of behavior, though. If I was Lapin and NOT MX, I'd want to avoid
>> that.
>>
>> -c
>>
>>
>>
> He's to dumb to hide it. He's trying to creae confusion by offering
> differnet arguments which he'll eventaully tie nto agreement. Fairly common
> sockpuppet move.
>
> Bertie

It's interesting that lawyers when they are learning how to try a case
in law school, take turns trying first the prosecution then the defense
for the same argument. In a way, one could say that with every lawyer,
one gets a sock puppet. Apparently here we only get a hot rabbit!!
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Tina wrote:
>>> Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look at
>>> LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far different
>>> than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics, but
>>> i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct patterns
>>> I'm seeing.
>>>
>>> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak
> with
>>> authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink. In
>>> this matter the odds are you're in error.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not sure of an exact figure by a long shot (someone could figure
> it
>> out if interested enough I guess) but from what I've seen take place
> on
>> this forum and other forums as well since the arrival of Mx on the
>> scene, I'd say the amount of bandwidth devoted to this single
> individual
>> has reached near epic proportions in a comparison with what otherwise
>> should be normal aviation discussion.
>>
>>
>> Considering the above, I'd say as well that having a resident
>> Psychologist on board with us is not only beneficial to the group but
>> practically a necessity....pilot or not.
>> Welcome aboard!
>> :-)
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Exactly, I'd take issue with you over the epic proportions statement,
> though. Zoom has to be the all time aviaiton k00k in that department.
> Even I got ired of that!
>
> Bertie


I must have missed the Zoom thing. You mean that surpassed Ralphie and
Tarver?????

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Gatt" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Tina" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak
>>>> with authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident
>>>> shrink.
>>>
>>> *hides behind desk*
>>>
>>>
>>> You could be correct that it's not him. Similar content and
>>> patterns of behavior, though. If I was Lapin and NOT MX, I'd want
>>> to avoid that.
>>>
>>> -c
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> He's to dumb to hide it. He's trying to creae confusion by offering
>> differnet arguments which he'll eventaully tie nto agreement. Fairly
>> common sockpuppet move.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> It's interesting that lawyers when they are learning how to try a case
> in law school, take turns trying first the prosecution then the
> defense for the same argument. In a way, one could say that with every
> lawyer, one gets a sock puppet. Apparently here we only get a hot
> rabbit!!
>:-))
>

That's pretty much it. Sooner or later all k00ks do the sockpuppet
thing.
Badly,

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Tina wrote:
>>>> Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look at
>>>> LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far
different
>>>> than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics,
but
>>>> i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct patterns
>>>> I'm seeing.
>>>>
>>>> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak
>> with
>>>> authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink. In
>>>> this matter the odds are you're in error.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure of an exact figure by a long shot (someone could figure
>> it
>>> out if interested enough I guess) but from what I've seen take place
>> on
>>> this forum and other forums as well since the arrival of Mx on the
>>> scene, I'd say the amount of bandwidth devoted to this single
>> individual
>>> has reached near epic proportions in a comparison with what
otherwise
>>> should be normal aviation discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Considering the above, I'd say as well that having a resident
>>> Psychologist on board with us is not only beneficial to the group
but
>>> practically a necessity....pilot or not.
>>> Welcome aboard!
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly, I'd take issue with you over the epic proportions statement,
>> though. Zoom has to be the all time aviaiton k00k in that department.
>> Even I got ired of that!
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> I must have missed the Zoom thing. You mean that surpassed Ralphie and
> Tarver?????
>

Oh wow! It was over in rec.aviaiton.homebuilt mostly, with spillovers
into most of the other av groups at one time or another. Jim Campbell.
He's a seriously disturbed individual who's gone real life with a lot of
the other protaganists. He's been physically tossed out of Sun n Fun and
thee's been lawsuits over the flame wars!
It was all pretty entertaining but the number of posts related to the
whole thing was just insane. The residents of RAH decided to add a
Zzzzzz to every post related to him so that the others could killfile
any thread that they didn't want to see. it's been going on for at least
11 years now and though it;s slowed, you still see threads popping up
about it from time to time. Makes Anthony look like little bo peep,
though he is equally as crazy as Campbell in his own way

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Tina wrote:
>>>>> Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look at
>>>>> LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far
> different
>>>>> than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics,
> but
>>>>> i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct patterns
>>>>> I'm seeing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak
>>> with
>>>>> authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink. In
>>>>> this matter the odds are you're in error.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure of an exact figure by a long shot (someone could figure
>>> it
>>>> out if interested enough I guess) but from what I've seen take place
>>> on
>>>> this forum and other forums as well since the arrival of Mx on the
>>>> scene, I'd say the amount of bandwidth devoted to this single
>>> individual
>>>> has reached near epic proportions in a comparison with what
> otherwise
>>>> should be normal aviation discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Considering the above, I'd say as well that having a resident
>>>> Psychologist on board with us is not only beneficial to the group
> but
>>>> practically a necessity....pilot or not.
>>>> Welcome aboard!
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly, I'd take issue with you over the epic proportions statement,
>>> though. Zoom has to be the all time aviaiton k00k in that department.
>>> Even I got ired of that!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> I must have missed the Zoom thing. You mean that surpassed Ralphie and
>> Tarver?????
>>
>
> Oh wow! It was over in rec.aviaiton.homebuilt mostly, with spillovers
> into most of the other av groups at one time or another. Jim Campbell.
> He's a seriously disturbed individual who's gone real life with a lot of
> the other protaganists. He's been physically tossed out of Sun n Fun and
> thee's been lawsuits over the flame wars!
> It was all pretty entertaining but the number of posts related to the
> whole thing was just insane. The residents of RAH decided to add a
> Zzzzzz to every post related to him so that the others could killfile
> any thread that they didn't want to see. it's been going on for at least
> 11 years now and though it;s slowed, you still see threads popping up
> about it from time to time. Makes Anthony look like little bo peep,
> though he is equally as crazy as Campbell in his own way
>
> Bertie

I can see I've got a lot of catching up to do :-))
Believe it or not, I've never been over to RAH. I think there's a Jim
Campbell that posts here once in a while. I think he's a bush pilot or
at least flies out of the Northwest someplace. I'm pretty sure it's not
the same person.
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Tina wrote:
>>>>>> Gatt, I think you're wrong about the dual id. If you take a look
>>>>>> at LCL's posting history you'll find groups and technology far
>> different
>>>>>> than our resident jerk. I agree there are common characteristics,
>> but
>>>>>> i do not think MX is capable of isolating the two distinct
>>>>>> patterns I'm seeing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've admited many times I'm not a pilot so don't attempt to speak
>>>> with
>>>>>> authority on piloting techniques, but I am the resident shrink.
>>>>>> In this matter the odds are you're in error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure of an exact figure by a long shot (someone could
>>>>> figure
>>>> it
>>>>> out if interested enough I guess) but from what I've seen take
>>>>> place
>>>> on
>>>>> this forum and other forums as well since the arrival of Mx on the
>>>>> scene, I'd say the amount of bandwidth devoted to this single
>>>> individual
>>>>> has reached near epic proportions in a comparison with what
>> otherwise
>>>>> should be normal aviation discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering the above, I'd say as well that having a resident
>>>>> Psychologist on board with us is not only beneficial to the group
>> but
>>>>> practically a necessity....pilot or not.
>>>>> Welcome aboard!
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, I'd take issue with you over the epic proportions
>>>> statement, though. Zoom has to be the all time aviaiton k00k in
>>>> that department. Even I got ired of that!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> I must have missed the Zoom thing. You mean that surpassed Ralphie
>>> and Tarver?????
>>>
>>
>> Oh wow! It was over in rec.aviaiton.homebuilt mostly, with spillovers
>> into most of the other av groups at one time or another. Jim
>> Campbell. He's a seriously disturbed individual who's gone real life
>> with a lot of the other protaganists. He's been physically tossed out
>> of Sun n Fun and thee's been lawsuits over the flame wars!
>> It was all pretty entertaining but the number of posts related to the
>> whole thing was just insane. The residents of RAH decided to add a
>> Zzzzzz to every post related to him so that the others could killfile
>> any thread that they didn't want to see. it's been going on for at
>> least 11 years now and though it;s slowed, you still see threads
>> popping up about it from time to time. Makes Anthony look like little
>> bo peep, though he is equally as crazy as Campbell in his own way
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I can see I've got a lot of catching up to do :-))
> Believe it or not, I've never been over to RAH. I think there's a Jim
> Campbell that posts here once in a while. I think he's a bush pilot or
> at least flies out of the Northwest someplace. I'm pretty sure it's
> not the same person.
> D
>
Yeah, I think he's just a coincidence. This other one was involved in
some sort of kitplane scam, I beleive. He also posed as a doctor, I
think . By all accounts he is a pice of work, but the flame war that
went on around him was monumental! One of his buddies, Juan Jiminez,
still posts there and he's similarly popular with the natives.

RAH has had some good guys posting as well as some out and out kooks.
Tony LeVier posted there until the day he died!


Bertie

[Gatt]

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> I guess it is possible that, a long time ago,
> during a conference, someone mentioned Bernoulli and above-the-wing in
> same sentence, and people started printing untruth. So maybe the
> truth has always been known.

The truth has been known since at least early August when I revealed to
MXManiac that upper camber is a conspiracy by Alcoa to sell more aluminum.
Bernoulli was probably a stockholder.

-c

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip"> wrote

> Exactly, I'd take issue with you over the epic proportions statement,
> though. Zoom has to be the all time aviaiton k00k in that department.
> Even I got ired of that!

I would say that the Dennis Fetters wars in RAH rate right up there, with
more tenacity to keep alive and kicking than Zoom even had.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Yeah, I think he's just a coincidence. This other one was involved in
> some sort of kitplane scam, I beleive. He also posed as a doctor, I
> think . By all accounts he is a pice of work, but the flame war that
> went on around him was monumental! One of his buddies, Juan Jiminez,
> still posts there and he's similarly popular with the natives.

His main claim to fame is his publishing an aviation rag, with dubious
billing advertising practices that sometimes (many times), and reviewing
planes with a good rating if they advertised with him, and the other way for
the other thing.

He also (IMHO) is a compulsive liar, with claims that he is a graduate of
Edwards test pilot school, that he has flown (what?) over 200 types, and has
looped and rolled almost all of them.

He has also had (I don't remember all of the details) a stay in a "state
institution" where all of the occupants wear white clothes, sometimes with
real long sleeves with buckles on the ends. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Yeah, I think he's just a coincidence. This other one was involved in
>> some sort of kitplane scam, I beleive. He also posed as a doctor, I
>> think . By all accounts he is a pice of work, but the flame war that
>> went on around him was monumental! One of his buddies, Juan Jiminez,
>> still posts there and he's similarly popular with the natives.
>
> His main claim to fame is his publishing an aviation rag, with dubious
> billing advertising practices that sometimes (many times), and
> reviewing planes with a good rating if they advertised with him, and
> the other way for the other thing.
>
> He also (IMHO) is a compulsive liar, with claims that he is a graduate
> of Edwards test pilot school, that he has flown (what?) over 200
> types, and has looped and rolled almost all of them.
>
> He has also had (I don't remember all of the details) a stay in a
> "state institution" where all of the occupants wear white clothes,
> sometimes with real long sleeves with buckles on the ends. <g>

Yeah, i'd forgotten about the mag. US aviator or somehting, wasn;t it?

He was a pieve of work!

bertie

[John Doe[_4_]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

....

> Well, you're one weird little fjukk, aren't you?
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

Weird ****edness is what attracted me to your mother, Bertie.








--
if you're reading this in the aviation group, please note that the
message being replied to was not posted to the aviation group, it
was crossposted to the aviation group by the nym shifting obsessed
troll Bertie the Bunyip, that's what you don't see the post he's
following up to

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Doe" > wrote

> Weird f**kedness is what attracted me to your mother, Bertie.

Well, with that little gem, I'm quite sure you don't have anything to add to
this group, other than complaints, and other stuff I don't need to hear.

Plonk. A rare one, for me. A big turd drops into the flusher.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in news:HFAOi.5267$4V6.2961
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Well, you're one weird little fjukk, aren't you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Weird ****edness is what attracted me to your mother, Bertie.



Of this I have littel doubt.


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[John Doe[_4_]]

"Morgans" <jsmorgan charterJUNK.net> wrote:

> Plonk. A rare one, for me. A big turd drops into the flusher.

And there the troll goes announcing another date with his imaginary
kill file friend.









> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!h wmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!newsfe12.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
> From: "Morgans" <jsmorgan charterJUNK.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> References: <1191463474.680109.123040 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <1191520123.950733.246940 w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1191521212.449288.127490 r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <Xns99BF75D2FE930AvSvcs 216.168.3.50> <up0Oi.2626$y21.1166 newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <Xns99C278641BA04****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <HFAOi.5267$4V6.2961 newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>
> Subject: Re: Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet
> Lines: 13
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> Message-ID: <swFOi.1215$zL7.448 newsfe12.lga>
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 02:49:57 -0400
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 97.82.241.48
> X-Trace: newsfe12.lga 1191912600 97.82.241.48 (Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:50:00 MST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:50:00 MST
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603551
>
>

[John Doe[_4_]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> John Doe > wrote
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Well, you're one weird little fjukk, aren't you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Weird ****edness is what attracted me to your mother, Bertie.
>
>
>
> Of this I have littel doubt.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in news:TVFOi.5327$4V6.1495
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> John Doe > wrote
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Well, you're one weird little fjukk, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>> Weird ****edness is what attracted me to your mother, Bertie.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of this I have littel doubt.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

None whatsoever.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
t:

> "Morgans" <jsmorgan charterJUNK.net> wrote:
>
>> Plonk. A rare one, for me. A big turd drops into the flusher.
>
> And there the troll goes announcing another date with his imaginary
> kill file friend.
>
>
>
>

Clewless, too. this is becoming as smorgasbord


Bertie

[Gatt]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
t...
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Well, you're one weird little fjukk, aren't you?

>
> Weird ****edness is what attracted me to your mother, Bertie.

*plonk*

[[email protected]]

On Oct 9, 3:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
> An obsessed regular troll

Bertie wrote:

> Oow! I have a stalker!
> And a k00kie one too!

Take a look over at comp.speech.users where John Dope has killed off a
useful users group with his vindictive, assinine and untruthful
invective. Another person fed up with John Dopes mischief tracked him
down and proved he was Mark Bender of San Antonio, Texas. John Doe is
a professional User Group killer. His real name and
address was discovered by cross referencing his E-mail address of
several years ago ) with an online ad he placed
to sell a used computer.

I paid for an investigative report (appended below). It shows Mark
Bender, aka John Dope, was arrested twice for domestic violence. A
subsequent investigation showed he was sued into poverty by a lawsuit
he lost. That he has no gainful employment. He rents an apartment in
an impoverished area of almost 90 year old run down homes in a bad
side of town. He is known by his neighbors as El Gatero Loco, the
crazy cat man (and not meant affectionately). He cares for homeless
cats (a good attribute in my opinion) as he cannot relate to members
of the human race. What a sad pathetic loser Mark Bender, aka John
Dope, is.

In addition, he is a professional spammer. Among other things, he
promotes an Online drugstore. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/free.spam/browse_thread/thread/37124e5c03d4727a/c206b32fb00ba3ee?hl=en#c206b32fb00ba3ee


Martin Markoe, eMicrophones, Inc.
Real person, real name, and legitimate business owner.

Here is the official report on him.

29-10947 Mark
O. Bender
7/25/2007
Dossier


REQUEST OF CLIENT


On July 24, 2007, Martin Markoe with eMicrophones, Inc. contacted
XXX Associates, with the request for a full background/dossier on
Mr. Mark O. Bender.


SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION


Our office found Mr. Mark Bender's current address is 509 Frost, SATX
78201, to be owned by Ms. Gloria Trevino. There are many rental homes
in this area. Mr. Bender has never owned property. He does not own a
vehicle. He doesn't have a TX Driver's license. He does have a TX
State ID. He has been arrested twice for Assault/Family/Domestic
Violence. Both charges were dismissed. There is a possibility that
the
"Mark Bender" named in the Bexar County Civil case for damages could
be the same Mark Orrin Bender with in this report. The court
documents
would to be ordered at any additional cost to the client.


Custom Comprehensive Report
Date: 07/24/07


Report processed by:
KELMAR AND ASSOCIATES M16489
2553 JACKSON KELLER STE 200
San Antonio, TX 78230
(210) 342-0509 Main Phone
(210) 342-0731 Fax Report Legend:
- Shared Address
- Deceased
- Probable Current Address


Subject Information:
Name: MARK ORRIN BENDER DOB:01/22/1957
SSN: 507-82-xxxx issued in Nebraska between 01/01/1972 and
12/31/1973
Age: 50


Others Associated With Subjects SSN:
(DOES NOT usually indicate any type of fraud or deception)
[None Found]


Comprehensive Report Summary: (Click on Link to see detail)
Names Associated With Subject:
None Found
Others Associated With Subjects SSN:
None Found
Bankruptcies:
None Found
Liens and Judgments:
None Found
UCC Filings:
None Found
People at Work:
None Found
Driver's License:
None Found
Address(es) Found:
1 Verified and 5 Non-Verified Found
Possible Properties Owned:
None Found
Motor Vehicles Registered:
None Found
Watercraft:
None Found
FAA Certifications:
None Found
FAA Aircrafts:
None Found
Possible Criminal Records:
1 Found
Sexual Offenses:
None Found
Professional Licenses:
None Found
Voter Registration:
1 Found
Hunting/Fishing Permit:
None Found
Concealed Weapons Permit:
None Found
Possible Associates:
None Found
Possible Relatives:
1st Degree - None Found
2nd Degree - None Found
3rd Degree - None Found
Neighbors:
1st Neighborhood - 3 Found
2nd Neighborhood - None Found
3rd Neighborhood - 2 Found


Bankruptcies:
[None Found]


Liens and Judgments:
[None Found]


UCC Filings:
[None Found]


People at Work:
[None Found]


Driver's License/State ID Information:


Texas ID Detail:


Name
BENDER,MARK ORRIN License number
20826255 Address
5320 BLANCO #1803 DOB
Jan 22 1957
Class
I City/Zip
SAN ANTONIO 78216 Last transaction date
Apr 9 2003 Last transaction
Original, not permit or MRDL


Above information as provided by state - Our annotations are below
Address (click to find others)
5320 Blanco Rd Apt 1803
City/State/Zip (click to find others)
San Antonio , TX 78216-7052


Address Summary:
509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-3347, BEXAR COUNTY (Nov 2005
-
May 2007)
4210 309 APT B, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201, BEXAR COUNTY (Dec 2002 -
Oct 2003)
4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B309, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-1912,
BEXAR COUNTY (Jan 1991 - Jan 1999)
5347 BLANCO RD APT B8, SAN ANTONIO TX 78216-7027, BEXAR COUNTY
(Apr 1986 - Dec 1992)
4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B316, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-1914,
BEXAR COUNTY
7458 LOUIS PASTEUR DR APT 701, SAN ANTONIO TX 78229-4517,
BEXAR
COUNTY


Active Address(es):
MARK O BENDER - 509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201-3347, BEXAR
COUNTY (Nov 2005 - May 2007)
Current phones listed at this address:
BENDER MARK (210) 734-3107
TREVINO MICHELLE (210) 736-5743
Property Ownership Information for this Address
Property:
Parcel Number - 08441-026-0240
Lot Number - 24
Owner Name 1 - TREVINO GLORIA C
Address - 509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO TX
78201-3347, BEXAR COUNTY
Owner's Address - 509 FROST, SAN ANTONIO
TX 78201-3347, BEXAR COUNTY
Land Usage - SFR
Total Value - $79,610
Land Value - $13,230
Improvement Value - $66,380
Land Size - 9,000
Year Built - 1926
Homestead Exemption - YES
Exterior Walls - STUCCO
Roof Type - ASPHALT SHINGLE
Air Conditioning - AC.CENTRAL
Heating - FORCED AIR
Sale Price - $0
Legal Description - NCB 8441 BLK 26 LOT
24 & 25 & 26
Data Source - A
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 37
Median Household Income: $38,438
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $47,100
Average Years of Education: 10


Previous And Non-Verified Address(es):
MARK ORRIN BENDER - 4210 309 APT B, SAN ANTONIO TX 78201,
BEXAR COUNTY (Dec 2002 - Oct 2003)
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 30
Median Household Income: $32,417
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $50,100
Average Years of Education: 12


MARK O BENDER - 4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B309, SAN ANTONIO
TX 78201-1912, BEXAR COUNTY (Jan 1991 - Jan 1999)
SANTA FE PLACE (210) 735-8767
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 32
Median Household Income: $18,304
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $91,300
Average Years of Education: 12


MARK O BENDER - 5347 BLANCO RD APT B8, SAN ANTONIO TX
78216-7027, BEXAR COUNTY (Apr 1986 - Dec 1992)
NIMITZ APARTMENTS (210) 341-5285
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 29
Median Household Income: $23,611
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $65,500
Average Years of Education: 12


MARK O BENDER - 4210 FREDERICKSBURG RD APT B316, SAN ANTONIO
TX 78201-1914, BEXAR COUNTY
SANTA FE PLACE (210) 735-8767
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 32
Median Household Income: $18,304
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $91,300
Average Years of Education: 12


MARK O BENDER - 7458 LOUIS PASTEUR DR APT 701, SAN ANTONIO TX
78229-4517, BEXAR COUNTY
SAN ANTONIO STATION (210) 614-3679
Neighborhood Profile (2000 Census)
Average Age: 41
Median Household Income: $31,783
Median Owner Occupied Home Value: $111,800
Average Years of Education: 14


Possible Properties Owned by Subject:
[None Found]


Motor Vehicles Registered To Subject:
[None Found]


Possible Criminal Records:
Texas Arrest Report:
Name: MARK BEDNER
SSN: 507-82-xxxx
Address: 5200 BLANCO RD 407, SAN ANTONIO TX 78216-7074
State of Origin: Texas
County of Origin: Bexar
Party Status: REL'D ON P-R BOND
DOB: 01/22/1957
Race: White
Sex: Male
Eyes: BLUE
Height: 5' 06"
Weight: 160


Arrests:
Arrest #1
Case Type:
Arrest Date: 01/25/1987
Arresting Agency:
Arrest Type:
Arrest Disposition Date: 01/25/1987
Court Fine: Offense: ASSAULT-BODILY INJURY
Arrest Statute:
Agency Case #: 366381
Arrest Level/Degree: Class A Misdemeanor
Arrest Disposition: BOOKED


CASE NUMBER 366381 displayed
successfully
Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System
07/24/2007
Texas Case Page
10:46:19


---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----
Court Case Number Defendant Name
Date of
CR7 366381 BEDNER,
MARK Birth


01/22/1957
Offense Description Level Sex:
MALE
02/21/1986 ASSAULT-BODILY INJURY MA Race:
WHITE
Location :
CLOSED
Last Setting: Grand Jury: 05/13/1986
FILED
Case Status: 06/29/1987 *** JN CLOSED
***
Disposition : 06/29/1987 DSMD-INTRST
JUSTCE


Judgement :
Bond: CLS 06/29/1987
1500.00
Start: End: By: BAIL BONDS,
PERSONAL


Defense Attorneys Bar Number Yrs Mo Dy
Hrs
MIKE HERVEY 9546500
Term:


Fine:
Court
Cost:


CASE NUMBER 348742 displayed
successfully
Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System
07/25/2007
Texas Case Page
09:57:05
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

My cup runneh over. K00ks like this don't come along every day of the week.


Bertie