Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse club"
>>>> that thinks you are a twit.
>>>
>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean people in
>>> the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them to show
>>> their true colors.
>>
>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 1
>
>
> Bertie

2 :)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 23, 5:39*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > Sure it is in a simulatated world.
>>
>> Or if you hit the ground just beyond the runway in the real world
>> because
> you
>> took off overweight.
>
> I've flown a 172 more loaded that!
>
> Cheers
>

I've flown one on a ferry that was probably about 300 or 400 lbs
overweight, but off very long runways and in a quite cold region. No
problem, but I wouldn't do it as routine and I wouldn't do it if
performance was an issue. A couple of pounds overweight is one thing,
but it doesn't take much to reach a point where the airplane won't go up
at all, particularly if it's a relatively low powered aircraft like a
172 in the first place. The degradation is not linear, so if there's a
100 FPM loss with a 100lb overload, it does not mean that there will be
a 200 lb loss with a 200 lb overload. Obvious, I know, but it's
something often forgotten when wishful thinking takes the place of a
rational approach to the problem.

Bertie

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Gee, isn't is sad that the every where Anthoney goes all the meanies
> > gang up on him through no fault of his own?

> That's not the sad part. The sad part is that there are so many mean people.
> It seems that only the threat of punishment or retribution keeps many mean
> people in line. When these threats are absent, they freely behave terribly
> towards their fellow human beings.

Have you ever wondered why you always seem to have this problem?

Have you ever wondered why few people other than you have this problem?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Yeah, right.
>
> As usual.
>

Yeah, right.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> If actual pilots here need advice they'll get it from pilots.
>
> Since a lot of actual pilots ignore any advice that doesn't agree with
> their own beliefs, it doesn't really matter where it comes from.
>

Nope, wrong again, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[george]

On Apr 23, 5:01 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Uh. 30 pound over is burned off in about 30 minutes.
>
> Unfortunately, take-off is over in 30 seconds.

With a modern runway in front of me around 700m long and no
obstructions above 200 feet for a km or so I will be safely off the
ground and established in the climb at 30 seconds.
30 minutes I will be clear of the circuit at my (C172) cruising
altitude and on track for my destination.

[george]

On Apr 23, 5:39 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Sure it is in a simulatated world.
>
> Or if you hit the ground just beyond the runway in the real world because you
> took off overweight.

You are demonstrating as to why you are the group clown.
If an aircraft impacts the ground after takeoff it will be engine
failure or loss of control (spin off departing turn) nothing to do
with load..

Mate of mine is an ag pilot.At 72+

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"gregvk" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse club"
>>>>> that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>
>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean people in
>>>> the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them to show
>>>> their true colors.
>>>
>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 1
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
> author:Maxwell"
>
> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.

Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling anyone,
just showing how lame you really are.

Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "gregvk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean people
>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them to
>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>
>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>> author:Maxwell"
>>
>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>
> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>
> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>
>

Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.


I thought you were running away? Forget something?




Bertie
>

[terry]

On Apr 22, 10:16*am, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
> tman wrote:
>
, and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought
> it would. *I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
> performance, but the pilots too. *Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind too.
> Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.
>
If you look very closely at the take off performance data of a 172
( which I have) you will find that higher temperature actually
improves performance, for the same air density. Now I know that
contradicts what we get taught in flight school, and while it is
generally true that when temperature is lower the air will be more
dense , the atmosphere is a dyanmic system and pressure and
temperature can vary independantly. So it is possible to have the
same air density , or density altitude at 2 different temperature and
the day with the higher temperature wil give you better performance.
It is related to engine performance and the best explanation I have
got is that at the same density on a higher temperature day, the
pressure will also be higher ( since density = PM/RT where M is
molecular wt, R is gas constant, P and T press and temp), and the
higher pressure provides a greater driving force to suck air into the
engine. If you do the same analysis on the landing distance you see
no such temperature effect because landing distance is not power
related , only lift related.
In the next few days I will get around to providing a link to this
data, but you can easily prove it yourself if you have the Cessna
takeoff distance tables..
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

terry > wrote in news:303fdf2b-7e83-4b08-aaf8-
:

> On Apr 22, 10:16*am, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
>> tman wrote:
>>
> , and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought
>> it would. *I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
>> performance, but the pilots too. *Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind
too.
>> Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.
>>
> If you look very closely at the take off performance data of a 172
> ( which I have) you will find that higher temperature actually
> improves performance, for the same air density. Now I know that
> contradicts what we get taught in flight school, and while it is
> generally true that when temperature is lower the air will be more
> dense , the atmosphere is a dyanmic system and pressure and
> temperature can vary independantly. So it is possible to have the
> same air density , or density altitude at 2 different temperature and
> the day with the higher temperature wil give you better performance.
> It is related to engine performance and the best explanation I have
> got is that at the same density on a higher temperature day, the
> pressure will also be higher ( since density = PM/RT where M is
> molecular wt, R is gas constant, P and T press and temp), and the
> higher pressure provides a greater driving force to suck air into the
> engine. If you do the same analysis on the landing distance you see
> no such temperature effect because landing distance is not power
> related , only lift related.
> In the next few days I will get around to providing a link to this
> data, but you can easily prove it yourself if you have the Cessna
> takeoff distance tables..
> Terry

Yeah, you'll get about 1% per 5 deg C on a typical normally aspirated
lightplane engine under those circumstances.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
@127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
people
>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them to
>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>
>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>
>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>
>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>
>>
>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> /rolls eyes
>
> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.

I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe we're like
that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>
> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate than
> Google's post count. It's... cute.
>

He's adorable.


Bertie

[george]

On Apr 24, 9:31 am, terry > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:16 am, tman <inv@lid> wrote:> tman wrote:
>
> , and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought> it would. I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
> > performance, but the pilots too. Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind too.
> > Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.
>
> If you look very closely at the take off performance data of a 172
> ( which I have) you will find that higher temperature actually
> improves performance, for the same air density. Now I know that
> contradicts what we get taught in flight school, and while it is
> generally true that when temperature is lower the air will be more
> dense , the atmosphere is a dyanmic system and pressure and
> temperature can vary independantly. So it is possible to have the
> same air density , or density altitude at 2 different temperature and
> the day with the higher temperature wil give you better performance.
> It is related to engine performance and the best explanation I have
> got is that at the same density on a higher temperature day, the
> pressure will also be higher ( since density = PM/RT where M is
> molecular wt, R is gas constant, P and T press and temp), and the
> higher pressure provides a greater driving force to suck air into the
> engine. If you do the same analysis on the landing distance you see
> no such temperature effect because landing distance is not power
> related , only lift related.
> In the next few days I will get around to providing a link to this
> data, but you can easily prove it yourself if you have the Cessna
> takeoff distance tables..
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

You can play with your C172 N weight and balance here
http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/alph/wb172N.html

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> You are to be Congratulated!
>>
>> With this absolutely astounding statement of astronomically historic and
>> infallible intellect, you have succeeded in completely negating the
>> entire concept of learning.
>
> You're confusing acquired knowledge with intelligence. Intelligence is
> relatively static throughout life, but acquired knowledge tends to steadily
> increase.
>
> Learning is the process of acquiring knowledge; it has no effect on
> intelligence. However, aptitude--the capacity to learn--is largely a function
> of intelligence. Smart people learn faster and more easily, all else being
> equal. This is why smart people tend to know more than stupid people.

You are truly amazing :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> Well, you'd have a hard time understaning how a 172 can fly to Haiwaii
> then. Try simulating a 172 300# over MTOW?

I don't exceed weight limits.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> You are demonstrating as to why you are the group clown.
> If an aircraft impacts the ground after takeoff it will be engine
> failure or loss of control (spin off departing turn) nothing to do
> with load..

I've already pointed this out:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-8-12-Overloaded-172.wmv

Doesn't look like an engine failure or spin to me. The aircraft was
overweight, though.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> You are to be Congratulated!
>>>
>>> With this absolutely astounding statement of astronomically historic
>>> and infallible intellect, you have succeeded in completely negating
>>> the entire concept of learning.
>>
>> You're confusing acquired knowledge with intelligence. Intelligence
>> is relatively static throughout life, but acquired knowledge tends to
>> steadily increase.
>>
>> Learning is the process of acquiring knowledge; it has no effect on
>> intelligence. However, aptitude--the capacity to learn--is largely a
>> function of intelligence. Smart people learn faster and more easily,
>> all else being equal. This is why smart people tend to know more
>> than stupid people.
>
> You are truly amazing :-)

He is, isn't he? He's like one of those battery powered Japanese robots
from the early sixties. you know, the kind that runs around the floor
moaking a lot of noise and get stuck every time he hits the edge of the
carpet.

Bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> You are truly amazing :-)

Thank you. Maybe I should write an article in Wikipedia promotiong myself.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Have you ever wondered why you always seem to have this problem?

No. I've seen others treated in exactly the same way, as soon as they
disagree with the alpha dog(s). I've seen it right here in this newsgroup,
and, in fact, at any given time there are usually at least one or two bullies
insulting a few targets in the group.

> Have you ever wondered why few people other than you have this problem?

No, because a lot of people are equally harassed by the kiddies. Anyone who
fails to submit to bullies becomes a target of them. There are more bullies
in cyberspace because they are better protected, which encourages even the
more cowardly among them to misbehave.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> You are truly amazing :-)
>
> Thank you. Maybe I should write an article in Wikipedia promotiong
> myself.
>

Oh! Let me!


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Have you ever wondered why you always seem to have this problem?
>
> No. I've seen others treated in exactly the same way, as soon as they
> disagree with the alpha dog(s).

Sez the Omega pup.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> Well, you'd have a hard time understaning how a 172 can fly to Haiwaii
>> then. Try simulating a 172 300# over MTOW?
>
> I don't exceed weight limits.
>

You don't fly, fjukktard, and you have no idea what weight limits are.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> You are demonstrating as to why you are the group clown.
>> If an aircraft impacts the ground after takeoff it will be engine
>> failure or loss of control (spin off departing turn) nothing to do
>> with load..
>
> I've already pointed this out:
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-8-12-Overloaded-
1
> 72.wmv
>
> Doesn't look like an engine failure or spin to me. The aircraft was
> overweight, though.
>
Nothing looks like anythign to you, fjukktard, you don't fly and have no
idea of what you're talking about. You may as well be commenting on a
Star trek sequence as though it were reality.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9A89C0CD6F9B9E817AC3D8380227
@127.0.0.1:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuognm$pjt$1
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> gregvk > wrote in
> news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
>> @127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>> people
>>>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them
to
>>>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> /rolls eyes
>>>
>>> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.
>>
>> I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe we're
> like
>> that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>>>
>>> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate than
>>> Google's post count. It's... cute.
>>>
>>
>> He's adorable.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> He's like a little animal that makes a cute little noise when you kick
> it, except the SPCA doesn't give a ****.
>
> /kick
> Yip!
> LOL
> Repeat.
>

I have to agree. i can't imagine why else he subjects himself to it.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 24, 12:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> WingFlaps writes:
> > Well, you'd have a hard time understaning how a 172 can fly to Haiwaii
> > then. Try simulating a 172 300# over MTOW?
>
> I don't exceed weight limits.

Dieting again? But seriously just try it and then you won't spout
_complete_ nonsense...

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> You are truly amazing :-)
>
> Thank you. Maybe I should write an article in Wikipedia promotiong myself.

You really ARE a bean brain Anthony. :-))
Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my
ego? How idiotic can one person be anyway? :-))))
Try actually READING that bio, then do some of your famous "research" on
what you find there. I believe you will discover that for better or
worse, (not all that much really) my ugly puss was already fairly well
known throughout the world before the bio was put there.
Just to enlighten you, I serve an many real world aviation safety think
tanks where requests for a bio are frequently asked for. The wiki page
simply makes it easier for interested people to access requested
information.

Please feel free as well to google me in quotes under "groups" and
reference Wikipedia. I found little there in the way of postings from me
where I was using Wikipedia as an "ego tool". I did find however, a
"discussion" concerning this "issue" initiated by you quite similar to
this post I'm answering here.
Sorry you see life and people the way you do Anthony, but I can't help that.
It's sad really.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Have you ever wondered why you always seem to have this problem?

> No. I've seen others treated in exactly the same way, as soon as they
> disagree with the alpha dog(s). I've seen it right here in this newsgroup,
> and, in fact, at any given time there are usually at least one or two bullies
> insulting a few targets in the group.

> > Have you ever wondered why few people other than you have this problem?

> No, because a lot of people are equally harassed by the kiddies. Anyone who
> fails to submit to bullies becomes a target of them. There are more bullies
> in cyberspace because they are better protected, which encourages even the
> more cowardly among them to misbehave.

The only other people I see treated like you are babbling retards posting
to sci.physics about perpetual motion machines, that Einstein was wrong
because he was a Jew, and the Apollo landings were fake.

All your crap is nothing more than rationalization of your own failings.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9A89C0CD6F9B9E817AC3D8380227
> @127.0.0.1:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuognm$pjt$1
>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>
>>> gregvk > wrote in
>> news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them
> to
>>>>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> /rolls eyes
>>>>
>>>> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.
>>> I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe we're
>> like
>>> that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>>>> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate than
>>>> Google's post count. It's... cute.
>>>>
>>> He's adorable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> He's like a little animal that makes a cute little noise when you kick
>> it, except the SPCA doesn't give a ****.
>>
>> /kick
>> Yip!
>> LOL
>> Repeat.
>>
>
> I have to agree. i can't imagine why else he subjects himself to it.
>
>
> Bertie

I think I know. Figured him out some time ago. I think you've a handle
on him as well. He tries hard but he just can't cut it. He's just not
good enough to pull it off :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> gregvk > wrote in
news:Xns9A89C0CD6F9B9E817AC3D8380227
>> @127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuognm$pjt$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>
>>>> gregvk > wrote in
>>> news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
>>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a
"treehouse
>>>>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't
fooling
>>>>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> /rolls eyes
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.
>>>> I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe we're
>>> like
>>>> that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>>>>> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate
than
>>>>> Google's post count. It's... cute.
>>>>>
>>>> He's adorable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> He's like a little animal that makes a cute little noise when you
kick
>>> it, except the SPCA doesn't give a ****.
>>>
>>> /kick
>>> Yip!
>>> LOL
>>> Repeat.
>>>
>>
>> I have to agree. i can't imagine why else he subjects himself to it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think I know. Figured him out some time ago. I think you've a handle
> on him as well. He tries hard but he just can't cut it. He's just not
> good enough to pull it off :-))


They just never seem to get the fact that the fish seldom reels in the
fisherman.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> gregvk > wrote in
> news:Xns9A89C0CD6F9B9E817AC3D8380227
>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuognm$pjt$1
>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> gregvk > wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
>>>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a
> "treehouse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't
> fooling
>>>>>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> /rolls eyes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.
>>>>> I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe we're
>>>> like
>>>>> that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>>>>>> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate
> than
>>>>>> Google's post count. It's... cute.
>>>>>>
>>>>> He's adorable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> He's like a little animal that makes a cute little noise when you
> kick
>>>> it, except the SPCA doesn't give a ****.
>>>>
>>>> /kick
>>>> Yip!
>>>> LOL
>>>> Repeat.
>>>>
>>> I have to agree. i can't imagine why else he subjects himself to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I think I know. Figured him out some time ago. I think you've a handle
>> on him as well. He tries hard but he just can't cut it. He's just not
>> good enough to pull it off :-))
>
>
> They just never seem to get the fact that the fish seldom reels in the
> fisherman.
>
>
> Bertie

Only in JAWS I think!!
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:V-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> gregvk > wrote in
>> news:Xns9A89C0CD6F9B9E817AC3D8380227
>>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuognm$pjt$1
>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> gregvk > wrote in
>>>>> news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
>>>>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
>>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a
>> "treehouse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of
mean
>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages
them
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for
group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't
>> fooling
>>>>>>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> /rolls eyes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.
>>>>>> I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe
we're
>>>>> like
>>>>>> that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>>>>>>> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate
>> than
>>>>>>> Google's post count. It's... cute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's adorable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> He's like a little animal that makes a cute little noise when you
>> kick
>>>>> it, except the SPCA doesn't give a ****.
>>>>>
>>>>> /kick
>>>>> Yip!
>>>>> LOL
>>>>> Repeat.
>>>>>
>>>> I have to agree. i can't imagine why else he subjects himself to
it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I think I know. Figured him out some time ago. I think you've a
handle
>>> on him as well. He tries hard but he just can't cut it. He's just
not
>>> good enough to pull it off :-))
>>
>>
>> They just never seem to get the fact that the fish seldom reels in
the
>> fisherman.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Only in JAWS I think!!
>:-))


And in Maxie's case, gums, or at best, chicken lips.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> Dieting again? But seriously just try it and then you won't spout
> _complete_ nonsense...

Why would I try something stupid?

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my
> ego?

I didn't say anything about you.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my
>> ego?
>
> I didn't say anything about you.

Don't be cute Anthony. It's beneath you. You took a shot and blew it. No
big deal. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps writes:
>
>> Dieting again? But seriously just try it and then you won't spout
>> _complete_ nonsense...
>
> Why would I try something stupid?
>

Dunno, to get to the other side?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my
>> ego?
>
> I didn't say anything about you.
>

Liar.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gregvk wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:V-
> :
>
>
> Your name sucks. Change it.

No thanks. My bank would go out of business.

--
Dudley Henriques

[george]

On Apr 24, 12:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Doesn't look like an engine failure or spin to me. The aircraft was
> overweight, though.

How the hell would you know what either engine failure or a spin looks
like?

Remember. You can't and don't fly.
I'd guess that this was an aft CofG.with all that that implies to the
pilots here...

[Frank Olson]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> I have no doubt that an adjuster for any insurance company is looking
> for an out and that the carrier is going to subro if they can. But they
> have to have wording in the policy that gives them the out. Hence ,my
> question to you "Was there wording in the policy that gave the insurance
> company the right to do that?"
>

Yes, there was. Any time an insurance company denies a claim they're
always going to reference the policy conditions.

[Tman]

one little nit (?). doesn't the empty weight of an a/c include full
oil, making no need to add it to the equation? I know the "basic empty
weight" of my 172 includes full oil... I don't add the weight of oil (or
unusable fuel)...


george wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:31 am, terry > wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 10:16 am, tman <inv@lid> wrote:> tman wrote:
>>
>> , and also the day turned out to be +20F hotter than I thought> it would. I've experienced that heat not only hurts the planes
>>> performance, but the pilots too. Oh yeah, a slightly gusty xwind too.
>>> Pretty happy I planned on leaving one pax behind.
>> If you look very closely at the take off performance data of a 172
>> ( which I have) you will find that higher temperature actually
>> improves performance, for the same air density. Now I know that
>> contradicts what we get taught in flight school, and while it is
>> generally true that when temperature is lower the air will be more
>> dense , the atmosphere is a dyanmic system and pressure and
>> temperature can vary independantly. So it is possible to have the
>> same air density , or density altitude at 2 different temperature and
>> the day with the higher temperature wil give you better performance.
>> It is related to engine performance and the best explanation I have
>> got is that at the same density on a higher temperature day, the
>> pressure will also be higher ( since density = PM/RT where M is
>> molecular wt, R is gas constant, P and T press and temp), and the
>> higher pressure provides a greater driving force to suck air into the
>> engine. If you do the same analysis on the landing distance you see
>> no such temperature effect because landing distance is not power
>> related , only lift related.
>> In the next few days I will get around to providing a link to this
>> data, but you can easily prove it yourself if you have the Cessna
>> takeoff distance tables..
>> Terry
>> PPL Downunder
>
> You can play with your C172 N weight and balance here
> http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/alph/wb172N.html

[Don Tabor]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:38:01 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

writes:
>
>> BTW, since your tunnel vision and self rightous, holier than thou arrogance
>> prevents you from seeing it, the vast majority of the posters here would
>> hardly be called "young".
>
>People who are stupid in their youth will also be stupid in their old age.

Unless they get a pilot's license, in which case old age becomes
unlikely.



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[terry]

On Apr 24, 9:57*am, george > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:31 am, terry > wrote:

> You can play with your C172 N weight and balance herehttp://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/alph/wb172N.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for the link George, Did you write this? Its a nice piece of
work , but as another poster mentions, oil should be included in the
MT wt, as should unusable fuel. As you prolly know I wrote my own in
Excel which can be downloaded (along with some other applications) at
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/index.html

Mine, I think is more idiot proof ( it had to be , I wrote it
basically for myself) and gives clear error messages if any
parameters are exceeded. It includes oil and unusable fuel in the MT
wt, but you still enter total fuel as that is what you measure when
you dip your tanks.
Terry
PPL Downunder

[Peter Dohm]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: george >
>
>>On Apr 24, 12:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't look like an engine failure or spin to me. The aircraft was
>>> overweight, though.
>>
>>How the hell would you know what either engine failure or a spin looks
>>like?
>>
>>Remember. You can't and don't fly.
>>I'd guess that this was an aft CofG.with all that that implies to the
>>pilots here...
>
> MX's idea of an aft CG is leaning back in his chair as he yanks his
> joystick.
>
Which could mean leaning back his chair... What a picture!

Thank God he's not my upstairs neighbor, and by a comfortable distance.

Peter :-)))

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> Getting out of your bedroom and walking to the local airfield to go
>> for a fly will immensely increase your fitness, your knowledge and
>> your self esteem.
>
> But if I did that, what excuse would the boys' club here use to dismiss my
> postings then?

Ah, so, that's why you keep blathering here? To amuse the "boy's club?"

We dismiss your posting because you're a clueless poser. Everybody who
tells you that here actually flies airplanes, poser, but somehow you
presume to know more about flying than everybody despite the fact that
you can't/don't/won't fly.

Is anything I just said unclear, poser?

-c
CP-ASEL-IA

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Sure it is in a simulatated world.
>
> Or if you hit the ground just beyond the runway in the real world because you
> took off overweight.

You have no idea why what you just said is nonsensical, and I'm not
going to bother to explain it to you.

-c

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Why would I try something stupid?

Because you routinely do stupid things anyway.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Your self rightous, holier than thou arrogance?

I refuse to back down, and that irritates them no end. But that is
> their problem, not mine.

Your problem is that you don't fly. Actual pilots here--nearly all of
them--keep telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about,
and you still can't catch the clue.

Referring to gentlemen like Dudley as "some angry young males" would
probably please their wives, but, I rather think it further illustrates
your total inability to grasp reality here.

Poser.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Benjamin Dover wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :

> No, Anthony. You're just a ****ing idiot who doesn't know **** from
> shinola.

That really is the most succinct and accurate description of poster on
this thread.

I've decided not to bother explaining it to him. For about $40/hr US,
he can get ground school or flight lessons from proven pilots and
qualified instructors, like the rest of us have.

Until then, he's a poser.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Dave Doe wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
> So it crashes on your simulator.


Not really. All you have to do is press the ALT key--that pauses
everything--open up the map, type in your new altitude and there you are.

Or, if the **** hits the fan, press "ctrl-;" and reset the flight on the
runway or your mid-air save point. JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> With this absolutely astounding statement of astronomically historic and
>> infallible intellect, you have succeeded in completely negating the
>> entire concept of learning.
>
> You're confusing acquired knowledge with intelligence.

And you're simply confused.

But at least Dudley's logged infinitely more flight and instruction
hours than you have.

Which, for the former, could also be said for anybody who's taken a 30
minute discovery flight for that matter.

Poser.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Gee, isn't is sad that the every where Anthoney goes all the meanies
>> gang up on him through no fault of his own?
>
> That's not the sad part.

Another point flew right over his head, Jim.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> You are truly amazing :-)
>
> Thank you. Maybe I should write an article in Wikipedia promotiong myself.

What would it say?

You'd have to have accomplished something to do that. Dudley actually
has. That's why we take him seriously and why you couldn't possibly
promote your flying skills on a Wikipedia site.


-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
> No. I've seen others treated in exactly the same way, as soon as they
> disagree with the alpha dog(s). I've seen it right here in this newsgroup,
> and, in fact, at any given time there are usually at least one or two bullies
> insulting a few targets in the group.

The difference is, at least they've flown airplanes. Poser.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my
>> ego?
>
> I didn't say anything about you.

So who were you talking about?

We all know exactly to whom you're referring, coward. Don't try to back
out of it now.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> How the hell would you know what either engine failure or a spin looks
> like?

By the description given.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> What would it say?

I don't know. I've never tried to promote myself.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Your problem is that you don't fly.

That isn't the problem that you make it out to be. Flying is not magic.

> Actual pilots here--nearly all of
> them--keep telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about,
> and you still can't catch the clue.

Actual pilots here have made some glaring errors that have considerably
diminished my opinion of private pilots. They don't seem to be nearly as
qualified as I had formerly presumed them to be. Sometimes they don't even
know the basics. Worse yet, they are more interested in defending their egos
than in being right.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Ah, so, that's why you keep blathering here? To amuse the "boy's club?"

I post here because I like to discuss aviation. The boys' club is a minority,
despite all the noise it makes.

[[email protected]]

gatt > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> Gee, isn't is sad that the every where Anthoney goes all the meanies
> >> gang up on him through no fault of his own?
> >
> > That's not the sad part.

> Another point flew right over his head, Jim.

And will probably allways do so.

He's the ultimate poster boy for the victim mentality.

To protect his ego from the reality that he has accomplished little to
nothing in life, he has an arrogant, self rightous, allway correct,
holier than thou shell that there probably isn't enough therapy in
the world to penetrate.

All the negatives in his life are "someone else's" fault, i.e. meenies,
bullies, angry young men, cliques, the stupid, etc.

All this results in extreme tunnel vision where he is incapable of
seeing shades of grey or nuances to situations.

This in turn causes most of his pronouncements to be questionable at
best and flat wrong at worst.

On the rare occasion he does enough Google research to get something
right, his attitude towards the cause of his failures, i.e. everyone
else in the world, results in all but the most patient being immediately
turned off.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> How the hell would you know what either engine failure or a spin looks
>> like?
>
> By the description given.
>

Wrong again, fjukkwit.


bertie

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> What would it say?
>
> I don't know. I've never tried to promote myself.

Try now. You brought it up.

What would it say?



-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> Ah, so, that's why you keep blathering here? To amuse the "boy's club?"
>
> I post here because I like to discuss aviation. The boys' club is a minority,
> despite all the noise it makes.

Who else here "discusses aviation" with you?

Surely somebody will step forward and defend you.


"Buehler... ...Buehler..."

[gatt[_3_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :

>>> How the hell would you know what either engine failure or a spin looks
>>> like?
>> By the description given.


So, I've read some descriptions of France, and according to the
descriptions, everybody over there is a chain-smoking, bloated,
undersexed, arrogant socialist cheese-eating alcoholic asshole whose
only respectable military force is their FOREIGN Legion.

I could ask a genuine frenchman or visit France, but, I don't need to
because of the "descriptions given." And since I studied French in high
school, I'm STILL more educated on the subject than Andrew is about
aviation.

"C'est la vie" say the old folks...

-c

[george]

On Apr 24, 5:30 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: george >
>
> >On Apr 24, 12:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >> Doesn't look like an engine failure or spin to me. The aircraft was
> >> overweight, though.
>
> >How the hell would you know what either engine failure or a spin looks
> >like?
>
> >Remember. You can't and don't fly.
> >I'd guess that this was an aft CofG.with all that that implies to the
> >pilots here...
>
> MX's idea of an aft CG is leaning back in his chair as he yanks his joystick.

Well I downloaded the video that he linked to and watched it.
Once!
If you download it you'll notice high nose, inability to maintain
track and no climb out of ground effect.
Wrong side of the power curve killed them

[george]

On Apr 24, 10:49 pm, terry > wrote:

> Thanks for the link George, Did you write this?

No! I'd like to have though

> Its a nice piece of
> work , but as another poster mentions, oil should be included in the
> MT wt, as should unusable fuel. As you prolly know I wrote my own in
> Excel which can be downloaded (along with some other applications) athttp://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/index.html
>
> Mine, I think is more idiot proof ( it had to be , I wrote it
> basically for myself) and gives clear error messages if any
> parameters are exceeded. It includes oil and unusable fuel in the MT
> wt, but you still enter total fuel as that is what you measure when
> you dip your tanks.
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

Thanks Terry.
I found it while looking up Weight and Balance for the same mark of
C172 I flew (ZK-CFD)
But I'm going to link to your one and run the same numbers

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

gatt wrote:

>
> So, I've read some descriptions of France, and according to the
> descriptions, everybody over there is a chain-smoking, bloated,
> undersexed, arrogant socialist cheese-eating alcoholic asshole whose
> only respectable military force is their FOREIGN Legion.
>
> I could ask a genuine frenchman or visit France, but, I don't need to
> because of the "descriptions given." And since I studied French in high
> school, I'm STILL more educated on the subject than Andrew is about
> aviation.
>
> "C'est la vie" say the old folks...
>
> -c

Anthony you mean.

P.S. Gatt, I really just corrected you on this so I could repost your
statement above.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Actual pilots here have made some glaring errors that have considerably
> diminished my opinion of private pilots. They don't seem to be nearly as
> qualified as I had formerly presumed them to be. Sometimes they don't even
> know the basics. Worse yet, they are more interested in defending their egos
> than in being right.

Then why do you continue to read and post here? The data you get isn't
up to your standards and unless you are insane (and I'm not ruling that
out)it must be clear to you that nobody who reads this group thinks
anything you write is worth the disk space it occupies. The only reason
left is that you come here to troll and cause trouble. Which pumps up
your ego because you are a sad little man-boy who has found whenever you
talk to real people in the real world they either ignore you or once you
keep blathering on and they can no longer ignore you they beat the crap
out of you.

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> gatt writes:
>
>
>>Ah, so, that's why you keep blathering here? To amuse the "boy's club?"
>
>
> I post here because I like to discuss aviation.

No you don't, liar. You spend precious little time discussing aviation
here, as your last several posts in this thread alone have made
abundantly clear. You post here for the same reason you post in any
discussion forum: you're a pain-in-the-ass ****-stirrer.

> The boys' club is a minority,
> despite all the noise it makes.

Your whiny dismissal of the substantial number of posters here who find
you a tedious, useless annoyance is utterly irrelevant, ****-stick-boi,
as is your pathetic passive-aggressive style of personal attack.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> Your problem is that you don't fly.
>
> That isn't the problem that you make it out to be. Flying is not magic.
>
>> Actual pilots here--nearly all of
>> them--keep telling you that you have no idea what you're talking about,
>> and you still can't catch the clue.
>
> Actual pilots here have made some glaring errors that have considerably
> diminished my opinion of private pilots.

LOL! Yet, you can't differentiate between the private pilots, commercial
pilots, CFIs and ATP.

>They don't seem to be nearly as qualified

You are not authoritative on who is qualified. The difference between
you is that they can and have flown planes.

-c

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> writes:
>
>
>>Have you ever wondered why you always seem to have this problem?
>
>
> No.

No surprise there, is there, numbnuts? You're utterly incapable of
introspection of any kind.

> I've seen others treated in exactly the same way, as soon as they
> disagree with the alpha dog(s). I've seen it right here in this newsgroup,
> and, in fact, at any given time there are usually at least one or two bullies
> insulting a few targets in the group.

Aw, poor widdle fella. Oh, by the way ... you claim you come here to
discuss aviation. So... just what the *HELL* does this have to do with
aviation, whiny-boi?

>>Have you ever wondered why few people other than you have this problem?
>
>
> No, because a lot of people are equally harassed by the kiddies.

"the kiddies?" More personal attacks, whiny-boi?

> Anyone who
> fails to submit to bullies becomes a target of them.

Awww, poor widdle baby. Is the mean ol' buwwies picking on poor widdle
you?

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I don't exceed weight limits.

You don't fly, numbnuts.

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> The sad part is that there are so many mean people.

Awww, poor widdle baby. And yet, here you are, whining about it
again and again and again, while making your fatuous, false claims
about posting here because you are interested in avaiation.

> It seems that only the threat of punishment or retribution keeps many mean
> people in line. When these threats are absent, they freely behave terribly
> towards their fellow human beings.

They don't behave terribly towards their fellow human beings at all,
particularly when it comes to you: you aren't a human being. You're
just a name on a screen.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> Actual pilots here have made some glaring errors that have considerably
>> diminished my opinion of private pilots. They don't seem to be nearly as
>> qualified as I had formerly presumed them to be. Sometimes they don't
>> even
>> know the basics. Worse yet, they are more interested in defending
>> their egos
>> than in being right.
>
> Then why do you continue to read and post here? The data you get isn't
> up to your standards and unless you are insane (and I'm not ruling that
> out)it must be clear to you that nobody who reads this group thinks
> anything you write is worth the disk space it occupies. The only reason
> left is that you come here to troll and cause trouble. Which pumps up
> your ego because you are a sad little man-boy who has found whenever you
> talk to real people in the real world they either ignore you or once you
> keep blathering on and they can no longer ignore you they beat the crap
> out of you.

I think I can answer this one for you as I've had the misfortune to have
engaged this person on several occasions.
My read on him is that he possesses average to above average
intelligence. He's used the simulator as a means of experiencing flying
without actually doing it for whatever reasons that entails.
Where it goes bad for him is that he envisions his simulation experience
as comparable with real life.
This is the twisted psychology he has brought to these forums.
Unfortunately for him, and for whatever reasons he had for doing it, he
entered the dialog with real pilots envisioning himself as an equal.
Naturally this backfired on him as pilots attempted to explain to him
that simulation is NOT real life.
I believe this led to him sliding deeper into his belief that anything a
real pilot could do with a real airplane, he could duplicate in a simulator.
This path has led him down a slippery slope that finds him now
envisioning himself not as an equal with the pilots here, but superior
to them, as he now firmly believes they all hate him.
I wouldn't go quite that far myself, but they definitely don't like him.
This has created the unending cycle we now see getting ever worse every day.

Of course one must consider that I for one am NOT a qualified
Psychologist and this is just my purely amatuer read on our friend.

Before you discount my diagnosis however, I strongly suggest that you
consider the fact that I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[dgs[_4_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> You are truly amazing :-)
>>
>>
>> Thank you. Maybe I should write an article in Wikipedia promotiong
>> myself.
>
>
> You really ARE a bean brain Anthony. :-))


Actually, he should. It would set a record for the shortest article
ever written.

Those of us who've laughed at his pathetic tripe for a while know him
best at "numbnuts." Feel free to refer to Anthony as "numbnuts." He
likes it a lot.
--
dgs

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 8:29*am, george > wrote:
> On Apr 24, 5:30 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> > From: george >
>
> > >On Apr 24, 12:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > >> Doesn't look like an engine failure or spin to me. *The aircraft was
> > >> overweight, though.
>
> > >How the hell would you know what either engine failure or a spin looks
> > >like?
>
> > >Remember. You can't and don't fly.
> > >I'd guess that this was an aft CofG.with all that that implies to the
> > >pilots here...
>
> > MX's idea of an aft CG is leaning back in his chair as he yanks his joystick.
>
> Well I downloaded the video that he linked to and watched it.
> Once!
> If you download it you'll notice high nose, inability to maintain
> track and no climb out of ground effect.
> Wrong side of the power curve killed them- Hide quoted text -
>

Yes, aft COG probably led to an early rotation he did not prevent with
forward pressure. With a very loaded aft COG it feels like the plane
wants to lift off but you must keep one eye on the ASI and keep that
nose down until you reach an increased rotate speed -or the end of the
runway...
Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

dgs wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> You are truly amazing :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you. Maybe I should write an article in Wikipedia promotiong
>>> myself.
>>
>>
>> You really ARE a bean brain Anthony. :-))
>
>
> Actually, he should. It would set a record for the shortest article
> ever written.
>
> Those of us who've laughed at his pathetic tripe for a while know him
> best at "numbnuts." Feel free to refer to Anthony as "numbnuts." He
> likes it a lot.

Sounds like our son's cat. He calls him "Mr. Fuzzynuts".

--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 25, 9:24*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> Before you discount my diagnosis however, I strongly suggest that you
> consider the fact that I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
> :-)
>

That's luxury, last time I was out I had to use a matress in a
dumpster (saving for 3D travel).

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Apr 25, 9:24 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Before you discount my diagnosis however, I strongly suggest that you
>> consider the fact that I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
>> :-)
>>
>
> That's luxury, last time I was out I had to use a matress in a
> dumpster (saving for 3D travel).
>
> Cheers

After looking at our stock portfolio this week, we might be borrowing
that mattress from you :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Of course one must consider that I for one am NOT a qualified
> Psychologist and this is just my purely amatuer read on our friend.
>
> Before you discount my diagnosis however, I strongly suggest that you
> consider the fact that I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
> :-)
>


I might agree with you Dudley IF this were the only place Anthony had
played out this scenario. It isn't he has done it in forums with topics
ranging from breast feeding to human sexuality. Both subjects, like
aviation that he knows nothing about accept maybe through simulation.

If you have some free time and want a laugh follow this link.

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=rWoQDRIAAACS528F_rb394iEdxnFF1zX8 rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

dgs wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Why would I try something stupid?
>
> Because you routinely do stupid things anyway.


It's in his nature.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

dgs wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>
> You don't fly, numbnuts.


Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

dgs > wrote in news:67cb1mF2o81iqU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> gatt writes:
>>
>>
>>>Ah, so, that's why you keep blathering here? To amuse the "boy's
club?"
>>
>>
>> I post here because I like to discuss aviation.
>
> No you don't, liar. You spend precious little time discussing
aviation
> here, as your last several posts in this thread alone have made
> abundantly clear. You post here for the same reason you post in any
> discussion forum: you're a pain-in-the-ass ****-stirrer.

I resent that! I'm a **** stirrer and there's no way he'd get a union
card.

Bertie

[george]

On Apr 25, 9:28 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:29 am, george > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 5:30 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> > > From: george >
>
> > > >On Apr 24, 12:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > >> Doesn't look like an engine failure or spin to me. The aircraft was
> > > >> overweight, though.
>
> > > >How the hell would you know what either engine failure or a spin looks
> > > >like?
>
> > > >Remember. You can't and don't fly.
> > > >I'd guess that this was an aft CofG.with all that that implies to the
> > > >pilots here...
>
> > > MX's idea of an aft CG is leaning back in his chair as he yanks his joystick.
>
> > Well I downloaded the video that he linked to and watched it.
> > Once!
> > If you download it you'll notice high nose, inability to maintain
> > track and no climb out of ground effect.
> > Wrong side of the power curve killed them- Hide quoted text -
>
> Yes, aft COG probably led to an early rotation he did not prevent with
> forward pressure. With a very loaded aft COG it feels like the plane
> wants to lift off but you must keep one eye on the ASI and keep that
> nose down until you reach an increased rotate speed -or the end of the
> runway...


Yup.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> dgs wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>
>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>
>
> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>
>

Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my ego?
I don't know if he does, but it speaks volumes to the rest of us.

How idiotic can one person be anyway? :-))))
Not sure, you seem to keep raising the bar.

> Try actually READING that bio, then do some of your famous "research" on
> what you find there. I believe you will discover that for better or worse,
> (not all that much really) my ugly puss was already fairly well known
> throughout the world before the bio was put there.
> Just to enlighten you, I serve an many real world aviation safety think
> tanks where requests for a bio are frequently asked for. The wiki page
> simply makes it easier for interested people to access requested
> information.
>
> Please feel free as well to google me in quotes under "groups" and
> reference Wikipedia. I found little there in the way of postings from me
> where I was using Wikipedia as an "ego tool". I did find however, a
> "discussion" concerning this "issue" initiated by you quite similar to
> this post I'm answering here.

There ya do Dumley, if ya can't dazzle'm with brilliance, baffle'm with
bull****.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> ...
>> dgs wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>
>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>
>>
>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>
>>
>
> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>

Boggle.


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my
>> ego?
> I don't know if he does, but it speaks volumes to the rest of us.
>
> How idiotic can one person be anyway? :-))))
> Not sure, you seem to keep raising the bar.
>
>> Try actually READING that bio, then do some of your famous "research"
>> on what you find there. I believe you will discover that for better
>> or worse, (not all that much really) my ugly puss was already fairly
>> well known throughout the world before the bio was put there.
>> Just to enlighten you, I serve an many real world aviation safety
>> think tanks where requests for a bio are frequently asked for. The
>> wiki page simply makes it easier for interested people to access
>> requested information.
>>
>> Please feel free as well to google me in quotes under "groups" and
>> reference Wikipedia. I found little there in the way of postings from
>> me where I was using Wikipedia as an "ego tool". I did find however,
>> a "discussion" concerning this "issue" initiated by you quite similar
>> to this post I'm answering here.
>
> There ya do Dumley, if ya can't dazzle'm with brilliance, baffle'm
> with bull****.
>
>
>
>

Snif sniff....


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> dgs wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>
>
> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>
>
>
Damn Mort, that was almost existential!!!! :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean people
>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them to
>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>
>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>
>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>
>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>
>>
>
> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>
>
> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>
>
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I was just finished
demonstrating your compulsive disorder. Remember, you answered over 100
messages with no more and a number for a reply. The twenty or thirty were
not response at all. Quite revealing to a lot of us. Even MX is not that
****ed up.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Well I downloaded the video that he linked to and watched it.
> Once!
> If you download it you'll notice high nose, inability to maintain
> track and no climb out of ground effect.
> Wrong side of the power curve killed them

The aircraft was overweight.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my ego?
> I don't know if he does, but it speaks volumes to the rest of us.
>
> How idiotic can one person be anyway? :-))))
> Not sure, you seem to keep raising the bar.
>
>> Try actually READING that bio, then do some of your famous "research" on
>> what you find there. I believe you will discover that for better or worse,
>> (not all that much really) my ugly puss was already fairly well known
>> throughout the world before the bio was put there.
>> Just to enlighten you, I serve an many real world aviation safety think
>> tanks where requests for a bio are frequently asked for. The wiki page
>> simply makes it easier for interested people to access requested
>> information.
>>
>> Please feel free as well to google me in quotes under "groups" and
>> reference Wikipedia. I found little there in the way of postings from me
>> where I was using Wikipedia as an "ego tool". I did find however, a
>> "discussion" concerning this "issue" initiated by you quite similar to
>> this post I'm answering here.
>
> There ya do Dumley, if ya can't dazzle'm with brilliance, baffle'm with
> bull****.
>
>
>
My goodness, what a surprise! I never would have guessed........ :-)))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> So, I've read some descriptions of France, and according to the
> descriptions, everybody over there is a chain-smoking, bloated,
> undersexed, arrogant socialist cheese-eating alcoholic asshole whose
> only respectable military force is their FOREIGN Legion.

That is largely correct.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9A89C0CD6F9B9E817AC3D8380227
>> @127.0.0.1:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuognm$pjt$1
>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>
>>>> gregvk > wrote in
>>> news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
>>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>>>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> /rolls eyes
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.
>>>> I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe we're
>>> like
>>>> that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>>>>> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate than
>>>>> Google's post count. It's... cute.
>>>>>
>>>> He's adorable.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> He's like a little animal that makes a cute little noise when you kick
>>> it, except the SPCA doesn't give a ****.
>>>
>>> /kick
>>> Yip!
>>> LOL
>>> Repeat.
>>>
>>
>> I have to agree. i can't imagine why else he subjects himself to it.
>> Bertie
>
> I think I know. Figured him out some time ago. I think you've a handle on
> him as well. He tries hard but he just can't cut it. He's just not good
> enough to pull it off :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Can't cut what, dumb ass? You don't know the first thing about me.

You're so busy telling all of us how great YOU are, you don't have time to
learn anything useful about us.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Try now.

No. I'm not interested in promoting myself.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> Then why do you continue to read and post here?

There are some real and competent pilots here, even if the kiddies drown them
out sometimes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> gregvk > wrote in
>>> news:Xns9A89C0CD6F9B9E817AC3D8380227 @127.0.0.1:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuognm$pjt$1
>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> gregvk > wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
>>>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "treehouse club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages
>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't
>>>>>>>> fooling anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> /rolls eyes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.
>>>>> I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe
>>>>> we're
>>>> like
>>>>> that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>>>>>> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate
>>>>>> than Google's post count. It's... cute.
>>>>>>
>>>>> He's adorable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> He's like a little animal that makes a cute little noise when you
>>>> kick it, except the SPCA doesn't give a ****.
>>>>
>>>> /kick
>>>> Yip!
>>>> LOL
>>>> Repeat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have to agree. i can't imagine why else he subjects himself to it.
>>> Bertie
>>
>> I think I know. Figured him out some time ago. I think you've a
>> handle on him as well. He tries hard but he just can't cut it. He's
>> just not good enough to pull it off :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Can't cut what, dumb ass? You don't know the first thing about me.
>
> You're so busy telling all of us how great YOU are, you don't have
> time to learn anything useful about us.
>

Hey, why don't you try a bit of self promotion and see how well it
works?



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean people
>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them to
>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>
>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>
>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>
>>>
>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>
>>
>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> You need to work on your reading comprehension. I was just finished
> demonstrating your compulsive disorder. Remember, you answered over 100
> messages with no more and a number for a reply. The twenty or thirty were
> not response at all. Quite revealing to a lot of us. Even MX is not that
> ****ed up.
>
>
>

Yes he is, and so are you. The only time you ever post is when you see
either Butthead of Mxmaniac involved with someone. Your posts are so
predictible people don't even have to read them to know what you're
going to say.
Dullsville!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Of course one must consider that I for one am NOT a qualified
> Psychologist and this is just my purely amatuer read on our friend.

So offering a psychological evaluation without a doctorate in psychology is
okay, but offering opinions on aviation without a pilot's license is not?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> So, I've read some descriptions of France, and according to the
>> descriptions, everybody over there is a chain-smoking, bloated,
>> undersexed, arrogant socialist cheese-eating alcoholic asshole whose
>> only respectable military force is their FOREIGN Legion.
>
> That is largely correct.
>

So, you don't know anything about France, either.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>
>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my
>>> ego?
>>
>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>
>
> Liar.
>
>
> Bertie

Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> LOL! Yet, you can't differentiate between the private pilots, commercial
> pilots, CFIs and ATP.

Yes, I can, since their qualifications are a matter of public record.
Additionally, the more experience they have, the more likely they are to know
something about the topic, unless they are part of that accident-prone
minority that has just been lucky so far.

> You are not authoritative on who is qualified. The difference between
> you is that they can and have flown planes.

It's easy enough to check what they say, and when they are wrong, it does not
inspire confidence in their qualifications.

I participate in a lot of aviation discussions outside this newsgroup, but
this venue probably has the highest percentage of unqualified, blowhard
wannabes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Try now.
>
> No. I'm not interested in promoting myself.
>

Yeh. Don't blame you.

Kinda like trying to sell dog ****.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> gregvk > wrote in news:Xns9A89C0CD6F9B9E817AC3D8380227
>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuognm$pjt$1
>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> gregvk > wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9A89A923F1A08E817AC3D8380227
>>>>> @127.0.0.1:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo8tf$6rt$1
>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages them
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>>>>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> /rolls eyes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I your sock or are you my sock? Just wondering.
>>>>> I'm not fussy. In Maxie's mind anything is possible, so maybe we're
>>>> like
>>>>> that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other..
>>>>>> And I like how Maxie-poo thinks his post count is more accurate than
>>>>>> Google's post count. It's... cute.
>>>>>>
>>>>> He's adorable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> He's like a little animal that makes a cute little noise when you kick
>>>> it, except the SPCA doesn't give a ****.
>>>>
>>>> /kick
>>>> Yip!
>>>> LOL
>>>> Repeat.
>>>>
>>> I have to agree. i can't imagine why else he subjects himself to it.
>>> Bertie
>> I think I know. Figured him out some time ago. I think you've a handle on
>> him as well. He tries hard but he just can't cut it. He's just not good
>> enough to pull it off :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Can't cut what, dumb ass? You don't know the first thing about me.
>
> You're so busy telling all of us how great YOU are, you don't have time to
> learn anything useful about us.
>
>

Good GOD man, do you want people to think we don't get along???
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Then why do you continue to read and post here?
>
> There are some real and competent pilots here, even if the kiddies
> drown them out sometimes.
>

Not that you could tell the difference.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>
>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>>>>>> people in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages
>>>>>>> them to show their true colors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>
>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>
>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>
>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>
>>
>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
> You need to work on your reading comprehension. I was just finished
> demonstrating your compulsive disorder.

Nope. You said your job was done and you were going.

Remember, you answered over
> 100 messages with no more and a number for a reply. The twenty or
> thirty were not response at all. Quite revealing to a lot of us. Even
> MX is not that ****ed up.


You can 'reveal' anything you like about me, fjuktard. You'll still
never get it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Well I downloaded the video that he linked to and watched it.
>> Once!
>> If you download it you'll notice high nose, inability to maintain
>> track and no climb out of ground effect.
>> Wrong side of the power curve killed them
>
> The aircraft was overweight.
>

How do you know, fjukkwit?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

dgs writes:

> So... just what the *HELL* does this have to do with
> aviation, whiny-boi?

Nothing. But people who dislike me regularly divert any discussion in which I
participate to a discussion of me personally. Perhaps they secretly admire
me, if they find me so much more interesting than the topic at hand.

> "the kiddies?" More personal attacks, whiny-boi?

A personal attack names its target. Nobody would be insulted by what I say
unless he voluntarily considers himself a clueless kiddie, which is his choice
(and revealing of his own self-evaluation) and not mine.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and
are
>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage
my
>>>> ego?
>>>
>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>


No, you're the liar.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Of course one must consider that I for one am NOT a qualified
>> Psychologist and this is just my purely amatuer read on our friend.
>
> So offering a psychological evaluation without a doctorate in
> psychology is okay, but offering opinions on aviation without a
> pilot's license is not?

Ooow! You're getting it now!


Well done.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Who else here "discusses aviation" with you?

There are several people here who seem level-headed, but I won't name them,
lest the treehouse club add them to the target list.

> Surely somebody will step forward and defend you.

Why? I can defend myself very well indeed.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and are
>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage my
>>>> ego?
>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>
>> Liar.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>
>
>
>
Actually he did, and that should be (you're the liar)
See...I taught you something; and you said I was too busy to take an
interest :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
> @newsfe17.lga:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and
> are
>>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage
> my
>>>>> ego?
>>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>>
>>> Liar.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>>
>
>
> No, you're the liar.
>
> Bertie

You're right, and YOU spelled (you're) right too :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
>> @newsfe17.lga:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and
>> are
>>>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage
>> my
>>>>>> ego?
>>>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, you're the liar.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're right, and YOU spelled (you're) right too :-))))
>

Sometimes i actually pay atrentoin to my spleeping an tpying.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Who else here "discusses aviation" with you?
>
> There are several people here who seem level-headed, but I won't name
> them, lest the treehouse club add them to the target list.
>
>> Surely somebody will step forward and defend you.
>
> Why? I can defend myself very well indeed.
>

Because you have nothing to defend.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>
>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and
are
>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage
my
>>>> ego?
>>>
>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>
>


Oh and conrgats on the k00k marriage. you guys always come together in
the end.


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> LOL! Yet, you can't differentiate between the private pilots,
>> commercial pilots, CFIs and ATP.
>
> Yes, I can, since their qualifications are a matter of public record.

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> dgs writes:
>
>> So... just what the *HELL* does this have to do with
>> aviation, whiny-boi?
>
> Nothing. But people who dislike me regularly divert any discussion in
> which I participate to a discussion of me personally. Perhaps they
> secretly admire me, if they find me so much more interesting than the
> topic at hand.
>
>> "the kiddies?" More personal attacks, whiny-boi?
>
> A personal attack names its target. Nobody would be insulted by what
> I say unless he voluntarily considers himself a clueless kiddie, which
> is his choice (and revealing of his own self-evaluation) and not mine.
>


I don;t dislike you . i just think you are an idiot.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Of course one must consider that I for one am NOT a qualified
>> Psychologist and this is just my purely amatuer read on our friend.
>
> So offering a psychological evaluation without a doctorate in psychology is
> okay, but offering opinions on aviation without a pilot's license is not?

Well, first of all, a Psychologist doesn't need a Doctorate to offer an
opinion.

Secondly, your own quote of my ending comment answers your own question
Anthony. I made it perfectly clear as you can read above, that my
"opinion" was NOT offered as a Psychologist at all, but rather simply as
an "amateur read".

Now for the other side of your equation: can you find in any ONE of your
postings on these forums from day one, a SINGLE post where you have
posted on aviation here where you offer a disclaimer that you, although
posting on aviation, are only offering a "purely amateur read" based on
the fact that you only fly with a simulator?

This sounds like a fair challenge to me?


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
>>> @newsfe17.lga:
>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and
>>> are
>>>>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage
>>> my
>>>>>>> ego?
>>>>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you're the liar.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> You're right, and YOU spelled (you're) right too :-))))
>>
>
> Sometimes i actually pay atrentoin to my spleeping an tpying.
>
> Bertie
>
I don't know what I'd do without my spell checker. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>>>>>>> people in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages
>>>>>>>> them to show their true colors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>
>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>
>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>> You need to work on your reading comprehension. I was just finished
>> demonstrating your compulsive disorder.
>
> Nope. You said your job was done and you were going.
>
> Remember, you answered over
>> 100 messages with no more and a number for a reply. The twenty or
>> thirty were not response at all. Quite revealing to a lot of us. Even
>> MX is not that ****ed up.
>
>
> You can 'reveal' anything you like about me, fjuktard. You'll still
> never get it.
>
>
> Bertie
>

There ya go lamer, it doesn't have to make sense. Just keep rattling your
empty head.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:08:14 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote in >:

>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.alien.v ampire.flonk.flonk.flonk

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"gregvk" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:furg1u$mae$5
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
>>>> @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much), and
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to assuage
>>>> my
>>>>>>>> ego?
>>>>>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you're the liar.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> You're right, and YOU spelled (you're) right too :-))))
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes i actually pay atrentoin to my spleeping an tpying.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You konw waht's fnuny? If you lavee the fisrt and lsat lteerts of a wrod
> anole but srlcbame all the leetrts bweeten, eyrvenoe can stlil raed it
> jsut fnie. Kdina cool, huh.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the
olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought
slpeling was ipmorantt!

[george]

On Apr 25, 2:17 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Well I downloaded the video that he linked to and watched it.
> > Once!
> > If you download it you'll notice high nose, inability to maintain
> > track and no climb out of ground effect.
> > Wrong side of the power curve killed them
>
> The aircraft was overweight.

Present the weight and balance sheet !
Or
It looked like the diet was working. Lost a lot of weight

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:08:14 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Newsgroups:
>>rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.alien.v ampire.flonk.flonk.fl
>>onk
>

alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,alt.flame added.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
>>>> @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much),
and
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to
assuage
>>>> my
>>>>>>>> ego?
>>>>>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you're the liar.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> You're right, and YOU spelled (you're) right too :-))))
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes i actually pay atrentoin to my spleeping an tpying.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> I don't know what I'd do without my spell checker. :-))
>

I never bother. it gives the k00ks confidence. Kind of like usenet chum.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "gregvk" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:fuo1ls$iga$1
>>>>>> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Funny that where ever you post there seems to be a "treehouse
>>>>>>>>>> club" that thinks you are a twit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I consider it more sad than funny. There are a lot of mean
>>>>>>>>> people in the world, and for some reason cyberspace encourages
>>>>>>>>> them to show their true colors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,280 for group:rec.aviation.piloting
>>>>>> author:Maxwell"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Erm, better start the counter at 1,281.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahh, give it a rest Bertie. Your sockpuppet routine isn't fooling
>>>>> anyone, just showing how lame you really are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, your statistics are waaaay off.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, yeh, sure k00kie boi.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought you were running away? Forget something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> You need to work on your reading comprehension. I was just finished
>>> demonstrating your compulsive disorder.
>>
>> Nope. You said your job was done and you were going.
>>
>> Remember, you answered over
>>> 100 messages with no more and a number for a reply. The twenty or
>>> thirty were not response at all. Quite revealing to a lot of us.
>>> Even MX is not that ****ed up.
>>
>>
>> You can 'reveal' anything you like about me, fjuktard. You'll still
>> never get it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> There ya go lamer, it doesn't have to make sense. Just keep rattling
> your empty head.
>
OK. If you insist.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:furg1u$mae$5
> @blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
>
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
>>>> @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much),
>>>>>>>> and
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to
>>>>>>>> assuage
>>>> my
>>>>>>>> ego?
>>>>>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you're the liar.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> You're right, and YOU spelled (you're) right too :-))))
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes i actually pay atrentoin to my spleeping an tpying.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You konw waht's fnuny? If you lavee the fisrt and lsat lteerts of a
> wrod anole but srlcbame all the leetrts bweeten, eyrvenoe can stlil
> raed it jsut fnie. Kdina cool, huh.
>

Are you Dutch, or have you really got a lavvee in your anole?

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665$3N1.5682
>>>>> @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>>> .. .
>>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much),
> and
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to
> assuage
>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> ego?
>>>>>>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, you're the liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> You're right, and YOU spelled (you're) right too :-))))
>>>>
>>> Sometimes i actually pay atrentoin to my spleeping an tpying.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> I don't know what I'd do without my spell checker. :-))
>>
>
> I never bother. it gives the k00ks confidence. Kind of like usenet chum.
>
>
> Bertie

Saves time as well.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BgbQj.11665
$3N1.5682
>>>>>> @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> .. .
>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you actually believe (not that it matters all that much),
>> and
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> trying to sell that I put a bio of myself on Wikipedia to
>> assuage
>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>> ego?
>>>>>>>>> I didn't say anything about you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> Na, your the liar, he really didn't this time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you're the liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> You're right, and YOU spelled (you're) right too :-))))
>>>>>
>>>> Sometimes i actually pay atrentoin to my spleeping an tpying.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> I don't know what I'd do without my spell checker. :-))
>>>
>>
>> I never bother. it gives the k00ks confidence. Kind of like usenet
chum.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Saves time as well.
>

Of course, some of them just jump into the boat...

Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Then why do you continue to read and post here?
>
> There are some real and competent pilots here, even if the kiddies drown them
> out sometimes.


Great make it easy on us then. Please post a list of the posters here
whom you think are the real and competent pilots. That way everyone will
know you are only going to accept their advice.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> dgs writes:
>
>> So... just what the *HELL* does this have to do with
>> aviation, whiny-boi?
>
> Nothing. But people who dislike me regularly divert any discussion in which I
> participate to a discussion of me personally. Perhaps they secretly admire
> me, if they find me so much more interesting than the topic at hand.
>

No we divert any discussion you are in because once you join it you
start filling it with incorrect information that needs to be squashed so
some unsuspecting passerby doesn't mistake your babble for useful
information.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>>
>>> Then why do you continue to read and post here?
>>
>> There are some real and competent pilots here, even if the kiddies
>> drown them
>> out sometimes.
>
>
> Great make it easy on us then. Please post a list of the posters here
> whom you think are the real and competent pilots. That way everyone will
> know you are only going to accept their advice.

There are many good pilots here Anthony. These people all offer good
advice. We have very few pilots here who are incompetent. Information is
passed back and forth freely. In this way, the good and bad information
is easily determined by others reading that information.

You could become a part of that "good information" if you wanted to
simply changing your approach to the group a bit.
Trust me, the group as a whole would much rather communicate with you in
a positive manner than what has developed.

I can prove that to you easily. Try posting to me in a positive and
friendly manner and I'll be happy to respond in kind.

Who knows...It might be a start?

--
Dudley Henriques

[Daedalus]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
:
>
>>
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> dgs wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>
>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>
>
>Boggle.
Scrabble

Jade
>
>
>Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Daedalus > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>
>>
>>Boggle.
> Scrabble
Twister

Bertie


>
> Jade
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Well, first of all, a Psychologist doesn't need a Doctorate to offer an
> opinion.

A pilot doesn't need a license to fly.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Then why do you continue to read and post here?
>
> There are some real and competent pilots here


You should try it sometime.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I can prove that to you easily. Try posting to me in a positive and
> friendly manner and I'll be happy to respond in kind.

I'm always positive and friendly. It doesn't work.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Of course one must consider that I for one am NOT a qualified
>> Psychologist and this is just my purely amatuer read on our friend.
>
> So offering a psychological evaluation without a doctorate in psychology is
> okay, but offering opinions on aviation without a pilot's license is not?

Not to pilots, when they're continually having to correct you.

Are you suggesting you have a doctorate in psychology, now, too?

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> LOL! Yet, you can't differentiate between the private pilots, commercial
>> pilots, CFIs and ATP.
>
> Yes, I can, since their qualifications are a matter of public record.

Bertie's, for example? "Buttman"? You only know my qualifications
based on what I tell you they are.


> I participate in a lot of aviation discussions outside this newsgroup, but
> this venue probably has the highest percentage of unqualified, blowhard
> wannabes.


Based on the amount of posts you make here, that's undoubtedly so.

'Cept the problem is, 99% of the people here aren't wannabes. They're
pilots. You probably don't want to be calling everybody wannabes when
you've got no actual flight time. 'Cause as somebody pointed out, that
makes you the very backside of the curve.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> Who else here "discusses aviation" with you?
>
> There are several people here who seem level-headed, but I won't name them,
> lest the treehouse club add them to the target list.
>
>> Surely somebody will step forward and defend you.
>
> Why? I can defend myself very well indeed.

You completely missed yet another point.

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Well, first of all, a Psychologist doesn't need a Doctorate to offer an
>> opinion.
>
> A pilot doesn't need a license to fly.

You're stretching to make your point and it "ain't flyin" Anthony.
When you talk Psychology, you are talking something that professionally
requires a license.
When you talk flying, and you are talking professionally, the same is
most certainly true.

Don't play word games with me. Just post honestly and in good faith and
I'll discuss flying issues with you in kind.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I can prove that to you easily. Try posting to me in a positive and
>> friendly manner and I'll be happy to respond in kind.
>
> I'm always positive and friendly. It doesn't work.

Sure it does, and you are certainly not always positive and friendly.
You COULD be however. Try it with me and see what happens.

See......I answered your post and didn't "zap you".

There will always be people on public forums who don't like you Anthony.
Just use me as an example if you like. I have several people on the
groups who don't like me; fortunately not too many :-) but it happens.
The opposite side of the coin is that the vast....and I mean VAST
majority of pilots who post here would much rather interact with you in
a positive manner. It's easier to do, uses less bandwidth, and keeps
people in a friendly mood rather than bitching at each other all the time.
Anyway, that's my read on it.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Daedalus]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>>
>>>
>>>Boggle.
>> Scrabble
>Twister
Sorry

Jade

>
>Bertie
>
>
>>
>> Jade
>>>
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>>

[gatt[_3_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
> There will always be people on public forums who don't like you Anthony.
> Just use me as an example if you like. I have several people on the
> groups who don't like me; fortunately not too many :-) but it happens.
> The opposite side of the coin is that the vast....and I mean VAST
> majority of pilots who post here would much rather interact with you in
> a positive manner. It's easier to do, uses less bandwidth, and keeps
> people in a friendly mood rather than bitching at each other all the time.
> Anyway, that's my read on it.


Well said.

It's pretty simple. Anybody who pops off like some kind of know-it-all
here better have something to show for it, 'cause whether it's a hobby
or a profession, nearly everybody here has invested time, money and
survival. You have to respect that.

Flying a computer or reading books and then passing judgment on actual
pilots here is like watching The History Channel and trying to explain
combat to a Marine. It won't earn you any respect at the enlisted club.


-c

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Sure it does, and you are certainly not always positive and friendly.

When have I been mean and negative?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Daedalus > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Boggle.
>>> Scrabble
>>Twister
> Sorry
Stratego!
>
> Jade
>
>>
>>Bertie
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Jade
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Well said.
>
> It's pretty simple. Anybody who pops off like some kind of know-it-all
> here better have something to show for it, 'cause whether it's a hobby
> or a profession, nearly everybody here has invested time, money and
> survival.

That's not what he said. How did you get from being negative or unfriendly to
"popping off like some kind of know-it-all"?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I can prove that to you easily. Try posting to me in a positive and
>> friendly manner and I'll be happy to respond in kind.
>
> I'm always positive and friendly. It doesn't work.
>

Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhw!

Excellent.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> You only know my qualifications based on what I tell you they are.

No, I only know your qualifications if you give me your real name.

> 'Cept the problem is, 99% of the people here aren't wannabes. They're
> pilots.

They have a pilot's license, in some cases, but that's not saying much. It
says they had 40 hours and $6000, nothing more.

> You probably don't want to be calling everybody wannabes when
> you've got no actual flight time.

Why not?

In any case, I wasn't calling _everyone_ a wannabe. There are some pilots
here who are actually worthy of the appellation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Well, first of all, a Psychologist doesn't need a Doctorate to offer an
>> opinion.
>
> A pilot doesn't need a license to fly.
>

That's right, he needs talent, ambition and a willingness to learn.

Rules you out.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in
news:iuSdneLJosZpaIzVnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@integraonlin e:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> gatt writes:
>>
>>> LOL! Yet, you can't differentiate between the private pilots,
>>> commercial pilots, CFIs and ATP.
>>
>> Yes, I can, since their qualifications are a matter of public record.
>
> Bertie's, for example? "Buttman"? You only know my qualifications
> based on what I tell you they are.
>
>
>> I participate in a lot of aviation discussions outside this
>> newsgroup, but this venue probably has the highest percentage of
>> unqualified, blowhard wannabes.
>
>
> Based on the amount of posts you make here, that's undoubtedly so.
>
> 'Cept the problem is, 99% of the people here aren't wannabes. They're
> pilots. You probably don't want to be calling everybody wannabes when
> you've got no actual flight time. 'Cause as somebody pointed out,
> that makes you the very backside of the curve.
>

I'm a rated Sky Legend


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> You only know my qualifications based on what I tell you they are.
>
> No, I only know your qualifications if you give me your real name.
>
>> 'Cept the problem is, 99% of the people here aren't wannabes.
>> They're pilots.
>
> They have a pilot's license, in some cases, but that's not saying
> much. It says they had 40 hours and $6000, nothing more.
>

40hours and $6,000 more than you have.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Well said.
>>
>> It's pretty simple. Anybody who pops off like some kind of
>> know-it-all here better have something to show for it, 'cause whether
>> it's a hobby or a profession, nearly everybody here has invested
>> time, money and survival.
>
> That's not what he said. How did you get from being negative or
> unfriendly to "popping off like some kind of know-it-all"?
>

Dunno. you gonna tel us?

Bertie

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:

>> It's pretty simple. Anybody who pops off like some kind of know-it-all
>> here better have something to show for it, 'cause whether it's a hobby
>> or a profession, nearly everybody here has invested time, money and
>> survival.
>
> That's not what he said. How did you get from being negative or unfriendly to
> "popping off like some kind of know-it-all"?

That's what I'm saying. You pop off like some kind of know-it-all. Ask
around.

Look, I wasn't "mean" to you and I didn't "bully" you as you accuse many
people of doing here. In fact, I had you killfiled until I switched
newsreaders because you're annoying, obtuse, clueless and generally full
of ****. As in, you pop off like some kind of know-it-all.

The pilots here have received training from instructors who are
obviously qualified enough to be alive, passed checkrides from examiners
who are authoritative, flown hundreds of thousands of combined hours and
lived to tell about it, some of them have actually build and flown their
own aircraft, and yet you've never sat behind the yoke of a Cessna 152
but yet you STILL contradict everything everybody says to you here.

Everything. Observe your own posts and see.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:

>> 'Cept the problem is, 99% of the people here aren't wannabes. They're
>> pilots.
>
> They have a pilot's license, in some cases, but that's not saying much. It
> says they had 40 hours and $6000, nothing more.

It's 40 hours more than what you have, isn't it?

>> You probably don't want to be calling everybody wannabes when
>> you've got no actual flight time.
>
> Why not?

I think you're smarter than your behavior here suggests. Of course you
know why not. You'd not walk into a Marine enlisted club and call them
wannabes or you'd be sorting through your **** to find your teeth, and
then you'd understand the meaning of words like "bully" and "mean."

> In any case, I wasn't calling _everyone_ a wannabe. There are some pilots
> here who are actually worthy of the appellation.

You're not one of them, and you're certainly not qualified by any
measure anywhere to decide who is "worthy" and who isn't.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> gatt > wrote in
posts you make here, that's undoubtedly so.
>>
>> 'Cept the problem is, 99% of the people here aren't wannabes. They're
>> pilots. You probably don't want to be calling everybody wannabes when
>> you've got no actual flight time. 'Cause as somebody pointed out,
>> that makes you the very backside of the curve.
>>
>
> I'm a rated Sky Legend

I'm a Jedi Knight. Working on my level one Jedi Master rating, but, the
Force hasn't been strong with me this spring.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gatt > wrote in
news:TdydnZow5JW0vI_VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@integraonlin e:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> gatt > wrote in
> posts you make here, that's undoubtedly so.
>>>
>>> 'Cept the problem is, 99% of the people here aren't wannabes.
They're
>>> pilots. You probably don't want to be calling everybody wannabes
when
>>> you've got no actual flight time. 'Cause as somebody pointed out,
>>> that makes you the very backside of the curve.
>>>
>>
>> I'm a rated Sky Legend
>
> I'm a Jedi Knight. Working on my level one Jedi Master rating, but,
the
> Force hasn't been strong with me this spring.

I know, my light sabre ball has been in the closet with the skis and
bike all winter too.


Bertie
>

[Daedalus]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Boggle.
>>>> Scrabble
>>>Twister
>> Sorry
>Stratego!
Risk!

Jade

>>
>> Jade
>>
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jade
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

[Kali]

In >, Daedalus
said:
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>wrote:
>
>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>Twister
>>> Sorry
>>Stratego!
>Risk!
Life!


--
Kali

[Daedalus]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:28 -0400, Kali > wrote:

>In >, Daedalus
said:
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>>Twister
>>>> Sorry
>>>Stratego!
>>Risk!
>Life!
Candyland!

Jade

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> That's what I'm saying. You pop off like some kind of know-it-all. Ask
> around.

I don't know it all, but I apparently know a great deal more than a lot of
people do. To them, it sounds like I'm trying to sound impressive, because
they have a hard time believing that a person could know that much. Rather
than accept that this is possible, they prefer to believe that it's all an act
or some sort of deliberate affection, which I suppose preserves their egos.

However, that is their problem, not mine. People who are reasonably
intelligent and untroubled by insecurity do not react in this way, and people
who are stupid and insecure do not interest me.

> Look, I wasn't "mean" to you and I didn't "bully" you as you accuse many
> people of doing here.

I don't recall directing any accusations at you.

> In fact, I had you killfiled until I switched
> newsreaders because you're annoying, obtuse, clueless and generally full
> of ****.

So why don't you killfile me again?

> As in, you pop off like some kind of know-it-all.

See above.

> The pilots here have received training from instructors who are
> obviously qualified enough to be alive, passed checkrides from examiners
> who are authoritative, flown hundreds of thousands of combined hours and
> lived to tell about it, some of them have actually build and flown their
> own aircraft, and yet you've never sat behind the yoke of a Cessna 152
> but yet you STILL contradict everything everybody says to you here.

Hundreds of hours is nothing. I have about 30,000 hours of driving
experience, but that doesn't make me an expert driver. Pilots with hundreds
of hours are often at the greatest risk of being killed, because they don't
really have much experience, but they think they do.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> It's 40 hours more than what you have, isn't it?

There are bums on the street who might have more money in their pocket than I
do, but that hardly makes them rich. Forty hours is nothing. Forty hours is
just five days. Most people can't even develop a decent level of skill in
driving a car in five days.

> I think you're smarter than your behavior here suggests.

I think it's not so much what my behavior suggests as what you infer.

> You'd not walk into a Marine enlisted club and call them
> wannabes or you'd be sorting through your **** to find your teeth, and
> then you'd understand the meaning of words like "bully" and "mean."

That would not make them right, nor would it make me wrong.

People who are upset often come up with analogies involving physical violence,
especially when they are male.

> You're not one of them, and you're certainly not qualified by any
> measure anywhere to decide who is "worthy" and who isn't.

Why should I lend any special credence to your opinion?

[george]

On Apr 26, 6:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I know, my light sabre ball has been in the closet with the skis and
> bike all winter too.
>
Boy are you going to get a shock when they all come out of that
closet :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in news:ccd35cef-d159-4938-af49-
:

> On Apr 26, 6:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> I know, my light sabre ball has been in the closet with the skis and
>> bike all winter too.
>>
> Boy are you going to get a shock when they all come out of that
> closet :-)
>
>

Yep!

Though I just got back form pushing my motorcycle a mile or so and that
didn't kill me.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Daedalus > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>Twister
>>> Sorry
>>Stratego!
> Risk!
Monopoly
>
> Jade
>
>>>
>>> Jade
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jade
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Daedalus > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:28 -0400, Kali > wrote:
>
>>In >, Daedalus
said:
>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340 @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come
>>>>>>>>>> down.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>>>Twister
>>>>> Sorry
>>>>Stratego!
>>>Risk!
>>Life!
> Candyland!
Chutes and Ladders!
>
> Jade
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> It's 40 hours more than what you have, isn't it?
>
> There are bums on the street who might have more money in their pocket
> than I do, but that hardly makes them rich. Forty hours is nothing.
> Forty hours is just five days. Most people can't even develop a
> decent level of skill in driving a car in five days.

Well, not you, anyway.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> That's what I'm saying. You pop off like some kind of know-it-all.
>> Ask around.
>
> I don't know it all, but I apparently know a great deal more than a
> lot of people do.

No, you don't.


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I don't know it all, but I apparently know a great deal more than a
> lot of people do. To them, it sounds like I'm trying to sound
> impressive, because they have a hard time believing that a person
> could know that much. Rather than accept that this is possible, they
> prefer to believe that it's all an act or some sort of deliberate
> affection, which I suppose preserves their egos.

You come of as a dumb ass dilletante because the bottom line is
YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA and you prove it every time you post.

>
>> The pilots here have received training from instructors who are
>> obviously qualified enough to be alive, passed checkrides from
>> examiners who are authoritative, flown hundreds of thousands of
>> combined hours and lived to tell about it, some of them have actually
>> build and flown their own aircraft, and yet you've never sat behind
>> the yoke of a Cessna 152 but yet you STILL contradict everything
>> everybody says to you here.
>
> Hundreds of hours is nothing. I have about 30,000 hours of driving
> experience, but that doesn't make me an expert driver. Pilots with
> hundreds of hours are often at the greatest risk of being killed,
> because they don't really have much experience, but they think they
> do.
>

You are too ****ing stupid to understand that you do have more experience
driving than someone who has never driven a car. Once again, you've proved
that YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA!

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> It's 40 hours more than what you have, isn't it?
>
> There are bums on the street who might have more money in their pocket
> than I do, but that hardly makes them rich. Forty hours is nothing.
> Forty hours is just five days. Most people can't even develop a
> decent level of skill in driving a car in five days.

Forty hours may be very little, but it's 40 hours more than you have,
moron. They have flown an airplane, you haven't. Once again, you've
proven to the world that YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> That's what I'm saying. You pop off like some kind of know-it-all. Ask
>> around.
>
> I don't know it all, but I apparently know a great deal more than a lot of
> people do.


Apparent to whom? You? That doesn't count, because you're not
qualified to suggest to trained, licensed pilots than you know "a great
deal more" than they do anymore than you're qualified to say the same to
a Marine about combat or a doctor about medicine.

Like I said, you contradict everything everybody says to you and you're
a fraud and a poser. It's not just the low-time pilots; there are
FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS out here telling you you're full of **** and you
still lack the intellectual capacity to catch the clue.

> So why don't you killfile me again?

Done, jackass.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> It's 40 hours more than what you have, isn't it?
>
> There are bums on the street who might have more money in their pocket than I
> do, but that hardly makes them rich. Forty hours is nothing.


No, numbnuts. Nothing, which is what you have, is nothing. Forty
hours, which is a lot less than what most of the people have here, is
forty hours you don't have, because you have nothing.

You're a poser.

*plonk*

[gatt[_3_]]

Benjamin Dover wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in

> You are too ****ing stupid to understand that you do have more experience
> driving than someone who has never driven a car.

Exactly.

>Once again, you've proved that YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA!

2:2

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 26, 7:46*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:
> > It's 40 hours more than what you have, isn't it?
>
> There are bums on the street who might have more money in their pocket than I
> do, but that hardly makes them rich. *Forty hours is nothing. *Forty hours is
> just five days. *

No it isn't.

Cheers

[terry]

On Apr 26, 1:18*am, gatt > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > gatt writes:
>
> >> Who else here "discusses aviation" with you?
>
> > There are several people here who seem level-headed, but I won't name them,
> > lest the treehouse club add them to the target list.
>
> >> Surely somebody will step forward and defend you.
>
> > Why? *I can defend myself very well indeed.
>
> You completely missed yet another point.
>

I did in fact defend him for some time, but later felt the need to
apologise to the group, for my behaviour in doing that.
As a relatively inexperienced pilot I guess I didnt fully appreciate
the annoyance that airline pilots and instructors would feel being
told they were wrong (without substantiating evidence) by someone who
had never flown in his life. As a PhD in physical chemisty ,my
attitude changed somewhat when he tried to tell me how the Universal
Gas Law didnt apply in the atmophere, despite several polite attempts
on my part to explain otherwise. There is nothing wrong with being
wrong, as long as you learn from the experience. It is the complete
and utter inability to accept and acknowledge when he is wrong that is
so irritating. If he wasnt such an obnoxious character and wasnt
16000 km away I would otherwise have loved to take him up ( gratis),
although I suspect there is something else lacking that would have
prevented him from accepting.

I have a suggestion, why dont we have a collection and send Anthony
off on a trial instructional flight on the proviso that the instructor
publishes an account of his peformance on this group? I'll contribute
$20
What about it Anthony , are you up for it?

[John[_13_]]

30000 hours of driving would be 14.2 years of driving 8 hours a day 5 days a
week 52 weeks a year. While it's possible that you have that much driving
experience given that you claim to be too poor to have a car I really don't
believe it. Unless your counting simulator time then all bets are off but
so is your claim of having the experience.
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gatt writes:
>
>> That's what I'm saying. You pop off like some kind of know-it-all. Ask
>> around.
>
> I don't know it all, but I apparently know a great deal more than a lot of
> people do. To them, it sounds like I'm trying to sound impressive,
> because
> they have a hard time believing that a person could know that much.
> Rather
> than accept that this is possible, they prefer to believe that it's all an
> act
> or some sort of deliberate affection, which I suppose preserves their
> egos.
>
> However, that is their problem, not mine. People who are reasonably
> intelligent and untroubled by insecurity do not react in this way, and
> people
> who are stupid and insecure do not interest me.
>
>> Look, I wasn't "mean" to you and I didn't "bully" you as you accuse many
>> people of doing here.
>
> I don't recall directing any accusations at you.
>
>> In fact, I had you killfiled until I switched
>> newsreaders because you're annoying, obtuse, clueless and generally full
>> of ****.
>
> So why don't you killfile me again?
>
>> As in, you pop off like some kind of know-it-all.
>
> See above.
>
>> The pilots here have received training from instructors who are
>> obviously qualified enough to be alive, passed checkrides from examiners
>> who are authoritative, flown hundreds of thousands of combined hours and
>> lived to tell about it, some of them have actually build and flown their
>> own aircraft, and yet you've never sat behind the yoke of a Cessna 152
>> but yet you STILL contradict everything everybody says to you here.
>
> Hundreds of hours is nothing. I have about 30,000 hours of driving
> experience, but that doesn't make me an expert driver. Pilots with
> hundreds
> of hours are often at the greatest risk of being killed, because they
> don't
> really have much experience, but they think they do.

[Peter Dohm]

"Benjamin Dover" > wrote in message
...
> gatt > wrote in
> news:PImdnT0AGbCrzY_VnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@integraonlin e:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> gatt writes:
>>>
>>>> It's 40 hours more than what you have, isn't it?
>>>
>>> There are bums on the street who might have more money in their
>>> pocket than I do, but that hardly makes them rich. Forty hours is
>>> nothing.
>>
>>
>> No, numbnuts. Nothing, which is what you have, is nothing. Forty
>> hours, which is a lot less than what most of the people have here, is
>> forty hours you don't have, because you have nothing.
>>
>> You're a poser.
>>
>> *plonk*
>>
>
> Gee Gatt, you're going to miss all of Anthony's idiotic knowledge :-)
>
> Here's one he posted today in VATSIM in response to someone who pointed
> out
> that in trains is a "dead man's" button which, if controls are not touched
> every few minutes, set off an alarm. Said Anthony, "Aircraft have this,
> too, at least in real life, although it doesn't seem to be simulated, at
> least not by PMDG." He really doesn't know **** from shinola.
>
That's a true classic! :-))))

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> gatt writes:
>
>> That's what I'm saying. You pop off like some kind of know-it-all. Ask
>> around.
>
> I don't know it all, but I apparently know a great deal more than a lot of
> people do. To them, it sounds like I'm trying to sound impressive,
> because
> they have a hard time believing that a person could know that much.
> Rather
> than accept that this is possible, they prefer to believe that it's all an
> act
> or some sort of deliberate affection, which I suppose preserves their
> egos.
>
> However, that is their problem, not mine. People who are reasonably
> intelligent and untroubled by insecurity do not react in this way, and
> people
> who are stupid and insecure do not interest me.
>
>> Look, I wasn't "mean" to you and I didn't "bully" you as you accuse many
>> people of doing here.
>
> I don't recall directing any accusations at you.
>
>> In fact, I had you killfiled until I switched
>> newsreaders because you're annoying, obtuse, clueless and generally full
>> of ****.
>
> So why don't you killfile me again?
>
>> As in, you pop off like some kind of know-it-all.
>
> See above.
>
>> The pilots here have received training from instructors who are
>> obviously qualified enough to be alive, passed checkrides from examiners
>> who are authoritative, flown hundreds of thousands of combined hours and
>> lived to tell about it, some of them have actually build and flown their
>> own aircraft, and yet you've never sat behind the yoke of a Cessna 152
>> but yet you STILL contradict everything everybody says to you here.
>
> Hundreds of hours is nothing. I have about 30,000 hours of driving
> experience, but that doesn't make me an expert driver. Pilots with
> hundreds
> of hours are often at the greatest risk of being killed, because they
> don't
> really have much experience, but they think they do.

You really should get outside more.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Apparent to whom?

Those who find me intimidating.

> > So why don't you killfile me again?
>
> Done, jackass.

Then why do I see replies from you after this one?

[Mxsmanic]

John writes:

> 30000 hours of driving would be 14.2 years of driving 8 hours a day 5 days a
> week 52 weeks a year.

About 400,000 km at a very low average speed, in heavy traffic. A lot of
driving, in any case.

> While it's possible that you have that much driving
> experience given that you claim to be too poor to have a car I really don't
> believe it.

It doesn't really matter what you believe.

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> Here's one he posted today in VATSIM in response to someone who pointed out
> that in trains is a "dead man's" button which, if controls are not touched
> every few minutes, set off an alarm. Said Anthony, "Aircraft have this,
> too, at least in real life, although it doesn't seem to be simulated, at
> least not by PMDG." He really doesn't know **** from shinola.

The 747-400 has three levels of alarm. All appear as PILOT RESPONSE on the
EICAS, the first being an advisory without an audible alarm, the second a
caution with a beeper, and the third a warning with a siren. The 777 (at
least, not sure about others) also has this alarm, and I presume it works in
much the same way. I'm sure it's configurable by operators.

[Mxsmanic]

WingFlaps writes:

> No it isn't.

40/8 = 5

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> There are several people here who seem level-headed, but I won't name them,
> lest the treehouse club add them to the target list.

What does this have to do with aviation? You claim you come here to
discuss aviation, but there is nothing here about aviation.

> Why? I can defend myself very well indeed.

No, actually, you suck incredibly badly at it. And ... what does this
have to do with aviation?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Apparent to whom?
>
> Those who find me intimidating.
>

Bwawahwhhahwhawhhawhhawhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhawhha whhawhhawhahwhahwhahwhahw
hahwhahwhahahwhahwhahw!


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

dgs writes:

> What does this have to do with aviation? You claim you come here to
> discuss aviation, but there is nothing here about aviation.

It has nothing to do with aviation, but some people--including
yourself--consistently divert virtually every thread in which I participate
into a discussion of me, rather than the topic at hand. If this disturbs you,
discuss aviation instead ... that would be just fine with me.

> No, actually, you suck incredibly badly at it. And ... what does this
> have to do with aviation?

That's twice in one post. Lead the way.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> dgs writes:
>
>> What does this have to do with aviation? You claim you come here to
>> discuss aviation, but there is nothing here about aviation.
>
> It has nothing to do with aviation, but some people--including
> yourself--consistently divert virtually every thread in which I
> participate into a discussion of me, rather than the topic at hand.
> If this disturbs you, discuss aviation instead ... that would be just
> fine with me.


Bull****.


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

terry > wrote in
:

> On Apr 26, 1:18*am, gatt > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > gatt writes:
>>
>> >> Who else here "discusses aviation" with you?
>>
>> > There are several people here who seem level-headed, but I won't
>> > name th
> em,
>> > lest the treehouse club add them to the target list.
>>
>> >> Surely somebody will step forward and defend you.
>>
>> > Why? *I can defend myself very well indeed.
>>
>> You completely missed yet another point.
>>
>
> I did in fact defend him for some time, but later felt the need to
> apologise to the group, for my behaviour in doing that.
> As a relatively inexperienced pilot I guess I didnt fully appreciate
> the annoyance that airline pilots and instructors would feel being
> told they were wrong (without substantiating evidence) by someone who
> had never flown in his life. As a PhD in physical chemisty ,my
> attitude changed somewhat when he tried to tell me how the Universal
> Gas Law didnt apply in the atmophere, despite several polite attempts
> on my part to explain otherwise. There is nothing wrong with being
> wrong, as long as you learn from the experience. It is the complete
> and utter inability to accept and acknowledge when he is wrong that is
> so irritating. If he wasnt such an obnoxious character and wasnt
> 16000 km away I would otherwise have loved to take him up ( gratis),
> although I suspect there is something else lacking that would have
> prevented him from accepting.

Don't feel bad. You're not the first one to try and work with the
MXSmoron. Many of the posters who now bash him also tried.

>
> I have a suggestion, why dont we have a collection and send Anthony
> off on a trial instructional flight on the proviso that the instructor
> publishes an account of his peformance on this group? I'll contribute
> $20
> What about it Anthony , are you up for it?
>

This offer has been made before and more than once. Anthony is too CS to
to go up in a small airplane. But, then again, he is to CS to experience
real life.

For a laugh, look at Anthony's user profile in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Agateller

For more laughs, look go to his profile in VATSIM and then click on "Find
all posts by Anthony Atkielski 985811". There are some real pilots and
controllers there, but it is amazing how idiots like Anthony can't
understand what the people who do this stuff in real life are trying to
explain to him. Like Anthony's claim that, similar to trains, there is a
"dead mans" switch in airplane cockpits, but they are not simulated.

Anthony's VATSIM profile can be found at:
http://forums.vatsim.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=985811

Just my own observation, have had read access to both this newsgroup AND
the old COMPUSERV AVSIG news group for well over two decades now. A lot of
people with some great experiences that they were willing to share have
left because of the harrassment they got from the Anthony's who post here.
Even Splaps Tarver and the Rockaway Loon have shown far more knowledge and
understanding about aviation than Anthony, despite his claims to
intelligence, ever will. Even the fish who's name we no longer mention
would rank above Anthony in understanding aviation, although not by much.
It is very fortunate that we have some stalwarts like Dudly and the Bunyip
who ignore Anthony's ravings and continue to generously give this newsgroup
the benefit of their hard earned experience and knowledge.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> dgs writes:
>
>> What does this have to do with aviation? You claim you come here to
>> discuss aviation, but there is nothing here about aviation.
>
> It has nothing to do with aviation, but some people--including
> yourself--consistently divert virtually every thread in which I
> participate into a discussion of me, rather than the topic at hand.
> If this disturbs you, discuss aviation instead ... that would be just
> fine with me.
>
>> No, actually, you suck incredibly badly at it. And ... what does
>> this have to do with aviation?
>
> That's twice in one post. Lead the way.

He's just pointing out that you, Anthony, are a liar. YOU DON'T KNOW ****
FROM SHINOLA.

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

[]
> The 747-400 has three levels of alarm.

Mixi, your posts usually set of 13 levels of alarm.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> dgs writes:
>
>
>>What does this have to do with aviation? You claim you come here to
>>discuss aviation, but there is nothing here about aviation.
>
>
> It has nothing to do with aviation,

So why are you claim to come here to discuss aviation, then? Why do you
continue to lie?

> but some people--including
> yourself--consistently divert virtually every thread in which I participate

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. Nobody forces you to participate in these thread, you
pathetically tedious pinhead.

> into a discussion of me, rather than the topic at hand. If this disturbs you,
> discuss aviation instead ... that would be just fine with me.

No, it wouldn't. You clearly have no interest in discussing aviation.
In fact, you don't fly, and have no interest in aviation at all. You
are nothing more than a tawdry liar.

>> what does this
>>have to do with aviation?
>
>
> That's twice in one post. Lead the way.

You need someone else to "lead the way" because you're too dishonest
to do it yourself, so you make up crap about *other* people's motives
in a desperate attention to pin the blame on anyone but yourself. What
a useless pathetic piece of **** you truly are.

Go ahead. Read this. Respond and continue to prove that you have no
interest at all in discussing aviation, and that you continue to delude
yourself in thinking it's somemone else's fault.
--
dgs

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> When have I been mean and negative?

You have been hostile and negative nearly all the time during your
participation here, and you continue to be this way. That you are
insufficiently capable of introspection to understand this is well
understood.
--
dgs

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> Here's one he posted today in VATSIM in response to someone who
>> pointed out that in trains is a "dead man's" button which, if
>> controls are not touched every few minutes, set off an alarm. Said
>> Anthony, "Aircraft have this, too, at least in real life, although it
>> doesn't seem to be simulated, at least not by PMDG." He really
>> doesn't know **** from shinola.
>
> The 747-400 has three levels of alarm. All appear as PILOT RESPONSE
> on the EICAS, the first being an advisory without an audible alarm,
> the second a caution with a beeper, and the third a warning with a
> siren. The 777 (at least, not sure about others) also has this alarm,
> and I presume it works in much the same way. I'm sure it's
> configurable by operators.

This from someone who had to ask where the handle for the ejector seat on
his Baron was located. And from someone who tells us about flying his
Baron from Phoenix to Las Vegas "In the real world, when you have VFR
traffic in your airspace that you're not talking to, does the traffic
usually follow established airways, or fly mostly direct to obvious fixes
(like VORs or major waypoints), or does VFR traffic tend to be all over the
place?"

How about your boasts of all your flying experience and how you prefer IFR,
Anthony? If you had any experience whatsoever, why did you need to ask in
VATSIM today (4/25/2008) "When flying IFR under ATC, am I required to use
only altimeter settings provided by ATC, or can I listen to the ATIS of a
nearby airport and set my altimeter that way?" Any IFR rated pilot knows
the answer and why. Hell, private pilots know the answer and why while
still student pilots. You don't. You're not a pilot. YOU DON'T KNOW ****
FROM SHINOLA. YOU ARE AN IMPOSTER. A POSER. A PHONY!

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I'm always positive and friendly.

No, you're not. You are neither positive nor friendly. You are
typically negative and hostile.

> It doesn't work.

Yes, your approach of being negative and hostile doesn't work. It never
has, and it never will.
--
dgs

[Mxsmanic]

dgs writes:

> You have been hostile and negative nearly all the time during your
> participation here, and you continue to be this way. That you are
> insufficiently capable of introspection to understand this is well
> understood.

Weren't you complaining about me not discussing aviation just a post or two
ago?

[dgs[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> dgs writes:
>
>
>>So... just what the *HELL* does this have to do with
>>aviation, whiny-boi?
>
>
> Nothing.

So you admit that this has nothing to do with aviation, but you continue
to post anyway. This makes you a liar. Why do you lie so much?

> But people who dislike me regularly divert any discussion in which I
> participate to a discussion of me personally.

So? And this forces you to post more of your babbling non-aviation-
related drivel then? Do these "people who dislike you" somehow reach
out and force you to post your off-topic crap? If you don't care about
such people, why do you even bother to respond? And, again:

Why do you continue to lie so much?

> Perhaps they secretly admire
> me, if they find me so much more interesting than the topic at hand.

What does this have to do with aviation? Why do you lie so much?

> A personal attack names its target. Nobody would be insulted by what I say
> unless he voluntarily considers himself a clueless kiddie, which is his choice
> (and revealing of his own self-evaluation) and not mine.

What does this steaming pile of solipsistic self-delusional crap have to
do with aviation? Why do you lie so much?
--
dgs

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> This from someone who had to ask where the handle for the ejector seat on
> his Baron was located.

I don't recall asking such a question.

> Any IFR rated pilot knows the answer and why.

There are a lot of things that IFR-rated pilots are supposed to know that they
don't.

[terry]

On Apr 26, 9:40*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
> terry > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 1:18*am, gatt > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> > gatt writes:
>
> >> >> Who else here "discusses aviation" with you?
>
> >> > There are several people here who seem level-headed, but I won't
> >> > name th
> > em,
> >> > lest the treehouse club add them to the target list.
>
> >> >> Surely somebody will step forward and defend you.
>
> >> > Why? *I can defend myself very well indeed.
>
> >> You completely missed yet another point.
>
> > I did in fact defend him for some time, *but later felt the need to
> > apologise to the group, for my behaviour in doing that.
> > As a relatively inexperienced pilot I guess I didnt fully appreciate
> > the annoyance that airline pilots and instructors would feel being
> > told they were wrong (without substantiating evidence) by someone who
> > had never flown in his life. *As a PhD in physical chemisty ,my
> > attitude changed somewhat when he tried to tell me how the Universal
> > Gas Law didnt apply in the atmophere, despite several polite attempts
> > on my part to explain otherwise. *There is nothing wrong with being
> > wrong, as long as you learn from the experience. It is the complete
> > and utter inability to accept and acknowledge when he is wrong that is
> > so irritating. *If he wasnt such an obnoxious character and wasnt
> > 16000 km away I would otherwise have loved to take him up ( gratis),
> > although I suspect there is something else lacking that would have
> > prevented him from accepting.
>
> Don't feel bad. *You're not the first one to try and work with the
> MXSmoron. *Many of the posters who now bash him also tried.
>
>
>
> > I have a suggestion, why dont we have a collection and *send Anthony
> > off on a trial instructional flight on the proviso that the instructor
> > publishes an account of his peformance on this group? *I'll contribute
> > $20
> > What about it Anthony , are you up for it?
>
> This offer has been made before and more than once. *Anthony is too CS to
> to go up in a small airplane. *But, then again, he is to CS to experience
> real life.
>
> For a laugh, look at Anthony's user profile in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Agateller
>
> For more laughs, look go to his profile in VATSIM and then click on "Find
> all posts by Anthony Atkielski 985811". *There are some real pilots and
> controllers there, but it is amazing how idiots like Anthony can't
> understand what the people who do this stuff in real life are trying to
> explain to him. *Like Anthony's claim that, similar to trains, there is a
> "dead mans" switch in airplane cockpits, but they are not simulated.
>
> Anthony's VATSIM profile can be found at:http://forums.vatsim.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=985811
>
> Just my own observation, have had read access to both this newsgroup AND
> the old COMPUSERV AVSIG news group for well over two decades now. *A lot of
> people with some great experiences that they were willing to share have
> left because of the harrassment they got from the Anthony's who post here. *
> Even Splaps Tarver and the Rockaway Loon have shown far more knowledge and
> understanding about aviation than Anthony, despite his claims to
> intelligence, ever will. *Even the fish who's name we no longer mention
> would rank above Anthony in understanding aviation, although not by much. *
> It is very fortunate that we have some stalwarts like Dudly and the Bunyip
> who ignore Anthony's ravings and continue to generously give this newsgroup
> the benefit of their hard earned experience and knowledge.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For someone with such supposedly high levels of IT skills, which
demand high paid salaries, why does he cry poor?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

terry > wrote in
:

> On Apr 26, 9:40*am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>> terry > wrote
>> innews:c5c4bd2f-93de-45fd-928e-6feca69
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 1:18*am, gatt > wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> >> > gatt writes:
>>
>> >> >> Who else here "discusses aviation" with you?
>>
>> >> > There are several people here who seem level-headed, but I won't
>> >> > name th
>> > em,
>> >> > lest the treehouse club add them to the target list.
>>
>> >> >> Surely somebody will step forward and defend you.
>>
>> >> > Why? *I can defend myself very well indeed.
>>
>> >> You completely missed yet another point.
>>
>> > I did in fact defend him for some time, *but later felt the need to
>> > apologise to the group, for my behaviour in doing that.
>> > As a relatively inexperienced pilot I guess I didnt fully
>> > appreciate the annoyance that airline pilots and instructors would
>> > feel being told they were wrong (without substantiating evidence)
>> > by someone who had never flown in his life. *As a PhD in physical
>> > chemisty ,my attitude changed somewhat when he tried to tell me how
>> > the Universal Gas Law didnt apply in the atmophere, despite several
>> > polite attempts on my part to explain otherwise. *There is nothing
>> > wrong with being wrong, as long as you learn from the experience.
>> > It is the complete and utter inability to accept and acknowledge
>> > when he is wrong that is so irritating. *If he wasnt such an
>> > obnoxious character and wasnt 16000 km away I would otherwise have
>> > loved to take him up ( gratis), although I suspect there is
>> > something else lacking that would have prevented him from
>> > accepting.
>>
>> Don't feel bad. *You're not the first one to try and work with the
>> MXSmoron. *Many of the posters who now bash him also tried.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I have a suggestion, why dont we have a collection and *send
>> > Anthony off on a trial instructional flight on the proviso that the
>> > instructor publishes an account of his peformance on this group?
>> > *I'll contribute
>
>> > $20
>> > What about it Anthony , are you up for it?
>>
>> This offer has been made before and more than once. *Anthony is too
>> CS t
> o
>> to go up in a small airplane. *But, then again, he is to CS to
>> experienc
> e
>> real life.
>>
>> For a laugh, look at Anthony's user profile in
>> Wikipedia:http://en.wikiped
> ia.org/wiki/User:Agateller
>>
>> For more laughs, look go to his profile in VATSIM and then click on
>> "Find all posts by Anthony Atkielski 985811". *There are some real
>> pilots and controllers there, but it is amazing how idiots like
>> Anthony can't understand what the people who do this stuff in real
>> life are trying to explain to him. *Like Anthony's claim that,
>> similar to trains, there is
> a
>> "dead mans" switch in airplane cockpits, but they are not simulated.
>>
>> Anthony's VATSIM profile can be found
>> at:http://forums.vatsim.net/profile.
> php?mode=viewprofile&u=985811
>>
>> Just my own observation, have had read access to both this newsgroup
>> AND the old COMPUSERV AVSIG news group for well over two decades now.
>> *A lot
> of
>> people with some great experiences that they were willing to share
>> have left because of the harrassment they got from the Anthony's who
>> post here.
> *
>> Even Splaps Tarver and the Rockaway Loon have shown far more
>> knowledge and
>
>> understanding about aviation than Anthony, despite his claims to
>> intelligence, ever will. *Even the fish who's name we no longer
>> mention would rank above Anthony in understanding aviation, although
>> not by much.
> *
>> It is very fortunate that we have some stalwarts like Dudly and the
>> Bunyip
>
>> who ignore Anthony's ravings and continue to generously give this
>> newsgrou
> p
>> the benefit of their hard earned experience and knowledge.- Hide
>> quoted te
> xt -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> For someone with such supposedly high levels of IT skills, which
> demand high paid salaries, why does he cry poor?
>
>
>
>

Nobody will give him a job.


Bertie

[george]

On Apr 26, 12:05 pm, terry > wrote:
- Show quoted text -
>
> For someone with such supposedly high levels of IT skills, which
> demand high paid salaries, why does he cry poor?

Incompetence has its own rewards...... ?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> I can prove that to you easily. Try posting to me in a positive and
>> friendly manner and I'll be happy to respond in kind.
>
> I'm always positive and friendly. It doesn't work.

Well I'll make a deal with you Anthony, as I notice that you are indeed
attracting a WHOLE lot of flack on the forum.

Tell you what Anthony. I'll promise you right here and now, with the
entire forum watching, that if you will post sincere aviation related
dialog to me personally, from this post onward I will answer you with
respect and matching sincerity.
Perhaps if you and I begin such a dialog, maybe we can turn this thing
around for you.
I don't know how to be more fair than this. I'd like nothing better than
to see your situation get better around here. I'm more than willing to
meet you half way on this.
Let's you and I start something positive.
What have you got to lose? Give it a try.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Tell you what Anthony. I'll promise you right here and now, with the
> entire forum watching, that if you will post sincere aviation related
> dialog to me personally, from this post onward I will answer you with
> respect and matching sincerity.

Fine with me.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> Tell you what Anthony. I'll promise you right here and now, with the
>> entire forum watching, that if you will post sincere aviation related
>> dialog to me personally, from this post onward I will answer you with
>> respect and matching sincerity.
>
> Fine with me.
Hey...that's great! Feel free from this post on to post anything to me
you feel is relevant to my area of expertise. I'll do my best to deal
with that honestly and respectfully.
I'll assume you will do the same with me.
It's about time somebody around here did something positive. Who knows,
maybe something good will come of it.
Hell, at least we'll know we tried anyway :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> This from someone who had to ask where the handle for the ejector
>> seat on his Baron was located.
>
> I don't recall asking such a question.
>
>> Any IFR rated pilot knows the answer and why.
>
> There are a lot of things that IFR-rated pilots are supposed to know
> that they don't.

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.

You most certainly did. You didn't know if a simulated Baron was different
from the real thing and asked if an ejector seat was really there.

So much for your continuous bull **** about how great MSFS with the 3rd
party add ons is in providing realistic "flying".

YOU DON'T KNOW **** FROM SHINOLA

[Benjamin Dover]

terry > wrote in news:dd3dc9df-91f9-4d71-a1d7-
:

> For someone with such supposedly high levels of IT skills, which
> demand high paid salaries, why does he cry poor?

Because Anthony is a programming legend in his own mind and no where else.

[Mxsmanic]

Benjamin Dover writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Benjamin Dover writes:
> >
> >> This from someone who had to ask where the handle for the ejector
> >> seat on his Baron was located.
> >
> > I don't recall asking such a question.
> >
> >> Any IFR rated pilot knows the answer and why.
> >
> > There are a lot of things that IFR-rated pilots are supposed to know
> > that they don't.
>
> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.
>
> You most certainly did. You didn't know if a simulated Baron was different
> from the real thing and asked if an ejector seat was really there.

Yes, but that's not what you said initially. You said I asked where the
handle for the ejection seat was, and that isn't true. This is what I
actually asked on October 15, 2006:

> I note in the simulation of the Baron in MSFS (Dreamfleet's
> simulation), there's a button on the left side of the pilot, part of
> several rows of buttons, marked "Ejection seat." I don't know if this
> is a joke on the part of the developers, or something that really
> exists in the aircraft. In the latter case, the only reason I can
> think of for it would be if it were something that existed on a
> military version of the aircraft. Is it really there?

I don't recall ever getting a serious answer to this question.

> So much for your continuous bull **** about how great MSFS with the 3rd
> party add ons is in providing realistic "flying".

I imagine that the button is what developers call an "Easter egg." An
aircraft like the Baron is rather small and light and ejection seats are
heavy, and I don't recall ever reading about an aircraft of this type being so
equipped. But one never knows. If someone told me not so many years ago that
private pilots would be buying aircraft that have giant parachutes to lower
the entire airframe to the ground in an emergency, I would have found that
pretty hard to believe, too.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Benjamin Dover writes:
>> >
>> >> This from someone who had to ask where the handle for the ejector
>> >> seat on his Baron was located.
>> >
>> > I don't recall asking such a question.
>> >
>> >> Any IFR rated pilot knows the answer and why.
>> >
>> > There are a lot of things that IFR-rated pilots are supposed to
>> > know that they don't.
>>
>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.
>>
>> You most certainly did. You didn't know if a simulated Baron was
>> different from the real thing and asked if an ejector seat was really
>> there.
>
> Yes, but that's not what you said initially. You said I asked where
> the handle for the ejection seat was, and that isn't true. This is
> what I actually asked on October 15, 2006:

Which makes you a disingenuous fjukkwit.
>
>> I note in the simulation of the Baron in MSFS (Dreamfleet's
>> simulation), there's a button on the left side of the pilot, part of
>> several rows of buttons, marked "Ejection seat." I don't know if
>> this is a joke on the part of the developers, or something that
>> really exists in the aircraft. In the latter case, the only reason I
>> can think of for it would be if it were something that existed on a
>> military version of the aircraft. Is it really there?
>
> I don't recall ever getting a serious answer to this question.
>


Becasue it didn;'t deserve one you retard.


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> I note in the simulation of the Baron in MSFS (Dreamfleet's
>> simulation), there's a button on the left side of the pilot, part of
>> several rows of buttons, marked "Ejection seat." I don't know if this
>> is a joke on the part of the developers, or something that really
>> exists in the aircraft. In the latter case, the only reason I can
>> think of for it would be if it were something that existed on a
>> military version of the aircraft. Is it really there?
>
> I don't recall ever getting a serious answer to this question.

Anthony'

The Baron has never as far as I know, was never fitted with any ejection
system; certainly not on any civilian version I have ever seen.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Don Tabor writes:

> Unless they get a pilot's license, in which case old age becomes
> unlikely.

If they do most of their flying in the hangar--or on USENET--they might
survive for quite a while.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Don Tabor writes:
>
>> Unless they get a pilot's license, in which case old age becomes
>> unlikely.
>
> If they do most of their flying in the hangar--or on USENET--they might
> survive for quite a while.
>

Wheras you wouldn't survive thre taxi to the end of the runway.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Lorrill Buyens > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:49:56 +0000 (UTC), Dread Pirate Bertie the
> Bunyip >, Scourge of the alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
> Seas, yo-ho-hoed:
>
>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:28 -0400, Kali > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In >, Daedalus
said:
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340 @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come
>>>>>>>>>>>> down.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>
>>>>>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>>>>>Twister
>>>>>>> Sorry
>>>>>>Stratego!
>>>>>Risk!
>>>>Life!
>>> Candyland!
>>Chutes and Ladders!
> Pictionary!
Yatzee!

[Kadaitcha Man[_2_]]

"Lorrill Buyens" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:49:56 +0000 (UTC), Dread Pirate Bertie the Bunyip
> >, Scourge of the alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk Seas,
> yo-ho-hoed:
>
>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:28 -0400, Kali > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In >, Daedalus
said:
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340 @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come
>>>>>>>>>>>> down.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>
>>>>>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>>>>>Twister
>>>>>>> Sorry
>>>>>>Stratego!
>>>>>Risk!
>>>>Life!
>>> Candyland!
>>Chutes and Ladders!
> Pictionary!
Rickety Kate!



--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List

Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E

"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" > asserting that his mind does
not exist.

[Lorrill Buyens]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:49:56 +0000 (UTC), Dread Pirate Bertie the Bunyip
>, Scourge of the alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk Seas, yo-ho-hoed:

>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:28 -0400, Kali > wrote:
>>
>>>In >, Daedalus
said:
>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340 @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.

>>>>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come
>>>>>>>>>>> down.

>>>>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......

>>>>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>>>>Twister
>>>>>> Sorry
>>>>>Stratego!
>>>>Risk!
>>>Life!
>> Candyland!
>Chutes and Ladders!
Pictionary!


--
Lorrill Buyens
MHM: 9x1; Smeeter: #21; WSD: #3; Gutter Chix0r: #19
Alcatroll Labs; Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll Division

"dsysm, its sooooo smooth and clesr."
- Dave Hillstrom's ringing endorsement of mead, in
aav3f

[Margy Natalie]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Apr 17, 9:53 pm, tman <inv@lid> wrote:
>
>>Flown C172's for quite a while, and never had anybody in the back.
>>Now I'm planning on quite a trip, with 2 pax and luggage.
>>
>>When I fill the fuel to the *tabs*, calc everyone's weight honestly and
>>consider baggage -- I'm 75 lbs over the 2450 gross on departure. Maybe
>>100 over gross if I assume a "lie about weight" factor or some
>>inaccuracy with filling the tanks. Now I'm scratching my head about
>>just how risky this is. I know (others) have pushed over gross in these
>>planes way more under worse conditions, and have almost always gotten
>>away with it. I'm inclined to just do it, and be cognizant that it will
>>perform differently, i.e. don't expect the same picture on climbout that
>>you would when solo.
>
>
> Hang on a moment 2 pax and baggage and you are over a 2450 172 MTOW?
> I've done a few miles with 2 PAX and never had a weight problem.
>
> How much baggage are they bringing?
> How much do they weigh?
>
> Cheers
>
Well, not that I have ever actually known anyone who has flown overgross
:-), but I have heard that very often they will fly just fine. I would
be concerned about CG, make sure you know your plane very well. BTW if
you offer to meet some folks from Usenet to fly to some fly-in make sure
you ask how much they weigh before the event. Imagine someone's surprise
when TWO LARGE individuals show up to catch a ride to a fly-in.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

gliderguynj wrote:
> So how is the conversation going to go?...Listen, I've never flown
> with passengers in the back before. The plane is also over the legal
> limit, but I think the numbers aren't too bad. Unless of course you
> really aren't the 200lb you claim and are more like 225lbs.... and
> the luggage is heavier than we think. Maybe I should use a scale and
> actually see what the weight being put in the plane really
> is....Nah,,,,but anyway, I posted it online, and everyone said we
> should be OK because those funny engineers put in a fudge factor, so
> the numbers listed don't really need to be followed.....
>
> It's not like Burt Rutan is flying his buddies to the Hilton Ranch...
>
> With all due respect to the original poster, I'd really reconsider
> this outing as planned....
>
>
>
>
>
For a really long time our ritual before OSH was to get the bathroom
scale out and put it in the living room. We would then weigh and record
each piece of baggage we were taking with us and carefully calculate
where everything went. Now we know, tent goes on the floor behind the
front seats, heavy suitcases become the "passengers" on the back seat
(still weigh a lot less than a person), case of wine, pillows, sleeping
bags and aluminum chairs in the baggage compartment (no fuel in baggage
tank). We are under gross, within WB and can usually see out the back
window :-)

If I was taking something very different or flying a different plane,
the scale would come out again.

Margy

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Lorrill Buyens > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:49:56 +0000 (UTC), Dread Pirate Bertie the Bunyip
> >, Scourge of the alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk Seas,
> yo-ho-hoed:
>
> >Daedalus > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:28 -0400, Kali > wrote:
> >>
> >>>In >, Daedalus
> said:
> >>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
> :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> >
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340 @newsfe17.lga:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
> >>>>>message
> >>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come
> >>>>>>>>>>> down.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>
> >>>>>>>>>Boggle.
> >>>>>>>> Scrabble
> >>>>>>>Twister
> >>>>>> Sorry
> >>>>>Stratego!
> >>>>Risk!
> >>>Life!
> >> Candyland!
> >Chutes and Ladders!
> Pictionary!
silver hammer

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple

[Margy Natalie]

Blanche wrote:
> Michael > wrote:
>
>>On Apr 17, 1:54 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>>>Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?
>>
>>That is exactly what he is saying. It's also pretty normal these days
>>to get a license in a 4-seater (Skyhawk or Warrior) without ever
>>having anyone in the back seat or coming anywhere near gross weight.
>
>
> Midway thru the PPL my CFI took me out on a hot afternoon with full
> tanks and someone in the back (C172). All we did was pattern work to
> "illustrate" weight, density altitude and me being miserable in a
> greenhouse aircraft.
>
> One of the best lessons of my life!
>
>
Yeah, we used to be "ballast" for my instructor showing other folks what
"real life" was all about. He wouldn't sign anyone off until they had
some "minimal vis" (i.e. elementary scud running), horrific crosswinds,
Max gross wieght, etc. He said "the first thing PPL's do is take 3 of
thier buddies out for a flight and screw it in". He was a bit over the
top, but that initial, excellent training has saved my butt a few times.

Margy

[Peter Dohm]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Blanche wrote:
>> Michael > wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 17, 1:54 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Are you saying you don't do a MAUW test flight in your training?
>>>
>>>That is exactly what he is saying. It's also pretty normal these days
>>>to get a license in a 4-seater (Skyhawk or Warrior) without ever
>>>having anyone in the back seat or coming anywhere near gross weight.
>>
>>
>> Midway thru the PPL my CFI took me out on a hot afternoon with full
>> tanks and someone in the back (C172). All we did was pattern work to
>> "illustrate" weight, density altitude and me being miserable in a
>> greenhouse aircraft.
>>
>> One of the best lessons of my life!
>>
>>
> Yeah, we used to be "ballast" for my instructor showing other folks what
> "real life" was all about. He wouldn't sign anyone off until they had
> some "minimal vis" (i.e. elementary scud running), horrific crosswinds,
> Max gross wieght, etc. He said "the first thing PPL's do is take 3 of
> thier buddies out for a flight and screw it in". He was a bit over the
> top, but that initial, excellent training has saved my butt a few times.
>
> Margy

One of my instructors did a lot of that as well--although he didn't
verbalize it quite so colorfully.

Actually, if he also fully briefed and debriefed each flight for all
present, including the "ballast" observers, it would have created a
dramatically more efficient learning experience. My instructor didn't rise
to quite that level; but I have heard that there are/were schools where they
do--at least at the corporate jet level and above.

Peter

[george]

On Apr 18, 12:21 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > That video has nothing to do with the OP's question. Clearly you are
> > just trolling.
>
> The aircraft was overweight, and everyone on board died in the crash that
> resulted from that.
>
> I knew that people would argue with me just because I'm the one who made the
> point. Thank goodness I don't have to fly with people like that in the
> pilot's seat. That kind of "rules don't count" attitude is one of the danger
> signs for pilot safety.

Well well.
The header is for and we've been discussing -Cessna 172's-
Lo and behold your claim for an overloaded aircraft is wrong.
The aircraft is a C182 on a medical evacuation
For your information Anthony a C182 is also a 4 seater but with a
useful load of over 1000lbs
And there is no way from that video that the aircraft is anywhere near
overloaded.
The pilot got onto the backside of the power curve and couldn't
recover...
Next time check your claim for factual content before posting eh

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> The header is for and we've been discussing -Cessna 172's-
> Lo and behold your claim for an overloaded aircraft is wrong.
> The aircraft is a C182 on a medical evacuation

All aircraft present similar risks when overweight.

> For your information Anthony a C182 is also a 4 seater but with a
> useful load of over 1000lbs
> And there is no way from that video that the aircraft is anywhere near
> overloaded.

Did you see all the equipment in the aircraft?

> Next time check your claim for factual content before posting eh

What was your source for this incident?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> The header is for and we've been discussing -Cessna 172's-
>> Lo and behold your claim for an overloaded aircraft is wrong.
>> The aircraft is a C182 on a medical evacuation
>
> All aircraft present similar risks when overweight.
>
>> For your information Anthony a C182 is also a 4 seater but with a
>> useful load of over 1000lbs
>> And there is no way from that video that the aircraft is anywhere
near
>> overloaded.
>
> Did you see all the equipment in the aircraft?
>
>> Next time check your claim for factual content before posting eh
>
> What was your source for this incident?
>


What's your's fjuuuktard?

Bertie

[george]

On Apr 28, 10:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > The header is for and we've been discussing -Cessna 172's-
> > Lo and behold your claim for an overloaded aircraft is wrong.
> > The aircraft is a C182 on a medical evacuation
>
> All aircraft present similar risks when overweight.

No
> > For your information Anthony a C182 is also a 4 seater but with a
> > useful load of over 1000lbs
> > And there is no way from that video that the aircraft is anywhere near
> > overloaded.
>
> Did you see all the equipment in the aircraft?

Yes. It's a bloody C182.
And in a different class to a C172 (which you first claimed it was)
>
> > Next time check your claim for factual content before posting eh
>
> What was your source for this incident?

Look up the video on YouTube.
It's the same one you gave a link to..

[Daedalus]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:03:57 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
> wrote:

>"Lorrill Buyens" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:49:56 +0000 (UTC), Dread Pirate Bertie the Bunyip
>> >, Scourge of the alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk Seas,
>> yo-ho-hoed:
>>
>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:28 -0400, Kali > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In >, Daedalus
said:
>>>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340 @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>>>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>>>>>>Twister
>>>>>>>> Sorry
>>>>>>>Stratego!
>>>>>>Risk!
>>>>>Life!
>>>> Candyland!
>>>Chutes and Ladders!
>> Pictionary!
>Rickety Kate!
WTF???

Jade

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> Here's one he posted today in VATSIM in response to someone who pointed out
>> that in trains is a "dead man's" button which, if controls are not touched
>> every few minutes, set off an alarm. Said Anthony, "Aircraft have this,
>> too, at least in real life, although it doesn't seem to be simulated, at
>> least not by PMDG." He really doesn't know **** from shinola.
>
> The 747-400 has three levels of alarm. All appear as PILOT RESPONSE on the
> EICAS, the first being an advisory without an audible alarm, the second a
> caution with a beeper, and the third a warning with a siren. The 777 (at
> least, not sure about others) also has this alarm, and I presume it works in
> much the same way. I'm sure it's configurable by operators.

ALERT: This message is being posted with no pilot intervention.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Benjamin Dover writes:
>
>> This from someone who had to ask where the handle for the ejector seat on
>> his Baron was located.
>
> I don't recall asking such a question.
>
>> Any IFR rated pilot knows the answer and why.
>
> There are a lot of things that IFR-rated pilots are supposed to know that they
> don't.


Beep.Beep. This post is made without any pilot intervention.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

ALERT ALERT ALERT...

BEEP BEEP BEEP...

This post is being made without any pilot intervention.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Yes. It's a bloody C182.
> And in a different class to a C172 (which you first claimed it was)

It's a tiny little plane.

> Look up the video on YouTube.
> It's the same one you gave a link to..

Oh, so you have the same factual content I do. In that case, why do you tell
me to check the facts?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> Yes. It's a bloody C182.
>> And in a different class to a C172 (which you first claimed it was)
>
> It's a tiny little plane.


No, it's not.
>
>> Look up the video on YouTube.
>> It's the same one you gave a link to..
>
> Oh, so you have the same factual content I do. In that case, why do
> you tell me to check the facts?
>

Because you look but do not digest or understand.


Bertie

[george]

On Apr 29, 5:06 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Yes. It's a bloody C182.
> > And in a different class to a C172 (which you first claimed it was)
>
> It's a tiny little plane.

**** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>
> > Look up the video on YouTube.
> > It's the same one you gave a link to..
>
> Oh, so you have the same factual content I do. In that case, why do you tell
> me to check the facts?

Because it will be a novel event for you.
Now go away and see that the aircraft in question is indeed a Cessna
182.
And come back to apologise

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

george wrote: To MX

>
> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>


182 can seat 6? Really?

[Kadaitcha Man[_2_]]

"Daedalus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:03:57 +1000, "Kadaitcha Man"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Lorrill Buyens" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:49:56 +0000 (UTC), Dread Pirate Bertie the Bunyip
>>> >, Scourge of the alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk Seas,
>>> yo-ho-hoed:
>>>
>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:28 -0400, Kali > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In >, Daedalus
said:
>>>>>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:hZaQj.11651$3N1.4340 @newsfe17.lga:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgs wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't exceed weight limits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't fly, numbnuts.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as he's never gone up, his testicles have never come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hell of a good point Mort, must be a lesson there......
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Boggle.
>>>>>>>>>>> Scrabble
>>>>>>>>>>Twister
>>>>>>>>> Sorry
>>>>>>>>Stratego!
>>>>>>>Risk!
>>>>>>Life!
>>>>> Candyland!
>>>>Chutes and Ladders!
>>> Pictionary!
>>Rickety Kate!
> WTF???


That's the Aussie name for Hearts.

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List

Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E

"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" > asserting that his mind does
not exist.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> george wrote: To MX
>
>>
>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>>
>
>
> 182 can seat 6? Really?
>

I think they used to have one of those kiddy benches available for those.
They even had them for 150s! I've never even seenone except in Cessna's
ads, though.



Bertie

[george]

On Apr 29, 9:23 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> george wrote: To MX
>
> > **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
> > The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>
> 182 can seat 6? Really?

Yup. They call the bench at the back of the cabin kiddie seats..

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

george wrote:
> On Apr 29, 9:23 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> george wrote: To MX
>>
>>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>> 182 can seat 6? Really?
>
> Yup. They call the bench at the back of the cabin kiddie seats..

Interesting, I've been around 182s since I could walk and probably
before I could walk and I've noticed such a thing.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...

Yes, tiny. A 767 or 747 is not tiny.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>
> Yes, tiny. A 767 or 747 is not tiny.
>

Yes, they are, compared to an A380 or the spruce goose.


Fjukkwit.

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 30, 1:20*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 9:23 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> george wrote: To MX
>
> >>> **** off. It can seat 6 *or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
> >>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
> >> 182 can seat 6? Really?
>
> > Yup. They call the bench at the back of the cabin kiddie seats..
>
> Interesting, I've been around 182s since I could walk and probably
> before I could walk and I've noticed such a thing.

The child seats are an option.

Cheers

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> george writes:
>
> > **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>
> Yes, tiny. A 767 or 747 is not tiny.

767's and 747's are tiny - compared to an AN-225.

Stop posting meaningless dribble.

--
Duncan

[Benjamin Dover]

Dave Doe > wrote in
. nz:

> In article >,
> says...
>> george writes:
>>
>> > **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>>
>> Yes, tiny. A 767 or 747 is not tiny.
>
> 767's and 747's are tiny - compared to an AN-225.
>
> Stop posting meaningless dribble.
>

Anthony can't help but post this crap. His entire life is meaningless
dribble.

[Just go look it up!]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:45:02 +1200, Dave Doe > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> george writes:
>>
>> > **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>>
>> Yes, tiny. A 767 or 747 is not tiny.
>
>767's and 747's are tiny - compared to an AN-225.
>
>Stop posting meaningless dribble.

You could have stopped after the first two words.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Benjamin Dover wrote:
>> Stop posting meaningless dribble.
>>
>
> Anthony can't help but post this crap. His entire life is meaningless
> dribble.


His mother said the same thing.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:09:43 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Unless things have changed drastically since I was dealing with
>>> insurance matters vs airplanes, the issue insurance wise isn't poor
>>> decision making but rather operating the aircraft CLEARLY OUTSIDE it's
>>> documented operating limitations. In other words, if you fly over gross,
>>> you are wide open if you have an accident WHILE the aircraft is being
>>> operated over gross, for a potential fight with the insurance carrier.
>>> I believe this is correct. Please feel free to check this out.
>>> I'd be interested to know if this situation has changed.
>>
>> This is what I asked my friend the insurance company lawyer. He tells me
>> that there has to be some language in the contract that excludes coverage for
>> operating outside operating limitations. The cannot make up exclusions after
>> the accident/incident. None of the policies I have says one word about
>> operating outside documented limitations. Anecdotally, I do know one
>> pilot that was tagged by the FAA for an incident while overweight. While the
>> FAA gave him 90 days to think about his error, the insurance company didn't
>> say boo.
>>
>>> The question is quite simple;
>>> Is your insurance valid if you knowingly operate the insured aircraft in
>>> violation of existing FAA regulations and the manufacturer's limitations
>>> for gross weight? (Flying over gross without a waiver to do so I believe
>>> meets both these parameters)
>>
>> Well, the FAR part is obvious. If they denied claims for violating FARs,
>> they wouldn't have to pay 95% of claims. As for the rest, it's fairly
>> simple. If it's not in the contract, it's not grounds for denying a claim.
>>
>> Interestingly, flying with a valid ferry permit generally invalidates
>> coverage. Specifically the requirement that the standard airworthiness cert.

I've flown the Deb on a ferry permit a number of times when it was out
of annual. Insurance company said, "Yes, I"m covered" as long as the
pilot is qualified, or meets their minimum qualifications AND I use a
vailid ferry permit. IOW it has to be inspected to be considered
airworthy to fly it to the FBO doing the annual.



>> be in effect. A ferry permit is a Special Airworthiness Cert. and does not
>> meet the standards in any policy I've had. Every plane I've ever ferried
>> required the insurance company to issue a specific waiver for the flight
>> under the permit, because the policy specifically states an exclusion for it.
>>
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
>Interesting. Changed indeed!
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Yes, they are, compared to an A380 or the spruce goose.

A 747 is in the same class.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Yes, they are, compared to an A380 or the spruce goose.
>
> A 747 is in the same class.
>

No, it isn't, fjuukkwit.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> george wrote: To MX
>>
>>>
>>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>>>
>>
>>
>> 182 can seat 6? Really?
>>
>
> I think they used to have one of those kiddy benches available for those.
> They even had them for 150s! I've never even seenone except in Cessna's
> ads, though.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Are you on acid? You can dream up more **** than a lame duck president.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 1:20 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 9:23 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> george wrote: To MX
>
> >>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
> >>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
> >> 182 can seat 6? Really?
>
> > Yup. They call the bench at the back of the cabin kiddie seats..
>
> Interesting, I've been around 182s since I could walk and probably
> before I could walk and I've noticed such a thing.

The child seats are an option.

Cheers

Anyone got a reference on this? It was available on the 150, but I have
never seen anything on a 172 or 82.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> george wrote: To MX
>
>>
>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>>
>
>
> 182 can seat 6? Really?

No, he's thinking of a 206.

If you remove the seats and top off only to half fuel, you can usually get
an extra jumper in a 182 or 206. Pilot plus 4 in the 182, and pilot plus 6
in the 206.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:7R8Sj.111620$Ft5.106570
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> news:fe83d7ef-c469-4d9d-b22e-69e460e71ea1
@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 1:20 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> george wrote:
>> > On Apr 29, 9:23 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> > wrote:
>> >> george wrote: To MX
>>
>> >>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>> >>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>> >> 182 can seat 6? Really?
>>
>> > Yup. They call the bench at the back of the cabin kiddie seats..
>>
>> Interesting, I've been around 182s since I could walk and probably
>> before I could walk and I've noticed such a thing.
>
> The child seats are an option.
>
> Cheers
>
> Anyone got a reference on this? It was available on the 150, but I
have
> never seen anything on a 172 or 82.


Yep, me.


Silly boi.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:7R8Sj.111620$Ft5.106570
> @newsfe15.lga:
>
>>
>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>> news:fe83d7ef-c469-4d9d-b22e-69e460e71ea1
> @q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 30, 1:20 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> wrote:
>>> george wrote:
>>> > On Apr 29, 9:23 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> george wrote: To MX
>>>
>>> >>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
>>> >>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
>>> >> 182 can seat 6? Really?
>>>
>>> > Yup. They call the bench at the back of the cabin kiddie seats..
>>>
>>> Interesting, I've been around 182s since I could walk and probably
>>> before I could walk and I've noticed such a thing.
>>
>> The child seats are an option.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Anyone got a reference on this? It was available on the 150, but I
> have
>> never seen anything on a 172 or 82.
>
>
> Yep, me.
>
>
> Silly boi.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Yeah, but everyone knows you're a liar.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> do they now?
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

Squirt, squirt.

[WingFlaps]

On May 1, 1:15*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Apr 30, 1:20 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
> > george wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 9:23 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > > wrote:
> > >> george wrote: To MX
>
> > >>> **** off. It can seat 6 or one pilot and 7 sky divers...
> > >>> The BD5 can be called a 'tiny little aeroplane'
> > >> 182 can seat 6? Really?
>
> > > Yup. They call the bench at the back of the cabin kiddie seats..
>
> > Interesting, I've been around 182s since I could walk and probably
> > before I could walk and I've noticed such a thing.
>
> The child seats are an option.
>
> Cheers
>
> Anyone got a reference on this? It was available on the 150, but I have
> never seen anything on a 172 or 82.

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182

Cheers