Re: Hypothesis on USAir birdstrike

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
>> and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
>> instead of a double birstrike, there was a single
>> birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
>> design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
>> power also?
>
> NIL
>
>



nope, wrong again planespotter



Bertie

[Steve Pope]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>Eeyore > wrote in

>> spope wrote,

>>> What are the odds that, instead of a double birstrike,
>>> there was a single birdstrike taking out one engine, but due
>>> to some design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
>>> power also?

>> NIL

>nope, wrong again planespotter

We shoudn't have to wait long, they've got both engines
now and it should be deterministic whether each one
ingested a bird causing damage.

Steve

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

(Steve Pope) wrote in news:gl08ml$cek$2
@blue.rahul.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>Eeyore > wrote in
>
>>> spope wrote,
>
>>>> What are the odds that, instead of a double birstrike,
>>>> there was a single birdstrike taking out one engine, but due
>>>> to some design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
>>>> power also?
>
>>> NIL
>
>>nope, wrong again planespotter
>
> We shoudn't have to wait long, they've got both engines
> now and it should be deterministic whether each one
> ingested a bird causing damage.


Mmm, true.

Bertie

[Harry K]

On Jan 18, 1:58*pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >Eeyore > wrote in
> >> spope wrote,
> >>> What are the odds that, instead of a double birstrike,
> >>> there was a single birdstrike taking out one engine, but due
> >>> to some design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
> >>> power also?
> >> NIL
> >nope, wrong again planespotter
>
> We shoudn't have to wait long, they've got both engines
> now and it should be deterministic whether each one
> ingested a bird causing damage.
>
> Steve

The black boxes alone will show if the crew shut down either engine
before it was showing damage. I do not expect that they did though.
I hope the final accident report is published here, or at least a link
to it. Should be interesting.

Harry K

[Steve Pope]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

> Steve Pope wrote:

>> The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
>> and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
>> instead of a double birdstrike, there was a single
>> birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
>> design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
>> power also?
>
> NIL

Lookin' more likely

S.

[vaughn]

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
>
> Lookin' more likely

How so?

Vaughn

[Steve Pope]

Gary L. Burnore > wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Lookin' more likely
>>
>> How so?
>>
>They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was pulled
>from the bottom of the river. Heh.
>
>Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike. So it's NOT
>likely.

The soft body strike was limited to the lip of the engine. Blades
are apparently intact, according to what I read. The second engine
did not at first glance ingest a bird, but we'll have to wait for
more total information.

Steve

[[email protected]]

On Jan 25, 10:34*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Gary L. Burnore > wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn" >
> >wrote:
>
> >>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> Lookin' more likely
>
> >> * How so?
>
> >They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was pulled
> >from the bottom of the river. Heh.
>
> >Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike. *So it's NOT
> >likely. *
>
> The soft body strike was limited to the lip of the engine. *Blades
> are apparently intact, according to what I read. *The second engine
> did not at first glance ingest a bird, but we'll have to wait for
> more total information.
>
> Steve

The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
simultaneously. It was birds in both. See

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipKRkY9XnWmqqvBNAlBju1taRJCQD95PSFFO0

Dan

[Gregory Hall]

"Gary L. Burnore" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Lookin' more likely
>>
>> How so?
>>
> They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was
> pulled
> from the bottom of the river. Heh.
>
> Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike. So it's
> NOT
> likely. Besides, each side has totally separate and redundant systems so
> the
> usual crap from the doom-and-gloom theorists applies.
>


Maybe the bird stuck its tongue into the engine?

--
Gregory Hall

[Steve Pope]

> wrote:

>On Jan 25, 10:34*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:

> The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
> simultaneously.

Yep

> It was birds in both.

Not yet demonstrated. The other possibility is some other TBD
flaw causes the other engine to lose power even though it
did not ingest a bird.

Steve

[marcia]

On Jan 25, 4:12*pm, Gary L. Burnore > wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:13:30 +0000 (UTC), (Steve Pope)
> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 25, 10:34*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
> >> simultaneously.
>
> >Yep
>
> >> It was birds in both.
>
> >Not yet demonstrated.
>
> Al KY Da. Did it!

For every action there's an equal and opposite conspiracy theory.

[Gregory Hall]

"Gary L. Burnore" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:07:59 -0500, "Gregory Hall" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gary L. Burnore" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> Lookin' more likely
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>> They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was
>>> pulled
>>> from the bottom of the river. Heh.
>>>
>>> Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike. So
>>> it's
>>> NOT
>>> likely. Besides, each side has totally separate and redundant systems
>>> so
>>> the
>>> usual crap from the doom-and-gloom theorists applies.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Maybe the bird stuck its tongue into the engine?
>
> Or, quite possibly, the pilot was laughing so hard at you for losing your
> DataBasix account for net abuse that he forgot to pull up.



Says the guy with the criminal record . . .

<http://gb2pic.notlong.com> [Mug shot and criminal specs]

--
Gregory Hall

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

(Steve Pope) wrote in news:gli2ls$lot$1
@blue.rahul.net:

> Eeyore > wrote in
> :
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
>>> and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
>>> instead of a double birdstrike, there was a single
>>> birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
>>> design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
>>> power also?
>>
>> NIL
>
> Lookin' more likely
>

Whuh?

Bertie

[vaughn]

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Gary L. Burnore > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn"
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> Lookin' more likely
>>>
>>> How so?
>>>
>>They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was
>>pulled
>>from the bottom of the river. Heh.
>>
>>Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike. So it's
>>NOT
>>likely.
>
> The soft body strike was limited to the lip of the engine. Blades
> are apparently intact, according to what I read. The second engine
> did not at first glance ingest a bird,

The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not in any way make
" some
design flaw or maintenance issue of the other engine" likely. It is
possible I suppose, but not likely. Remember, "conventional wisdom" is
sometimes spectacularly wrong, but it is dangerous to bet against it.

> but we'll have to wait for
> more total information.

Exactly.

Vaughn

[Steve Pope]

vaughn > wrote:

> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
> but it is dangerous to bet against it.

Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
either.

I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
theory is correct.

Steve

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

(Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3
@blue.rahul.net:

> vaughn > wrote:
>
>> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
>> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
>> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
>> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
>> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>
> Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
> each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
> either.


Yea,h it is actualy.

>
> I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
> the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
> blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
> theory is correct.

not neccesarily.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 25, 9:59*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> (Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3
> @blue.rahul.net:
>
> > vaughn > wrote:
>
> >> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
> >> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
> >> other engine" likely. *It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
> >> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
> >> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>
> > Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
> > each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
> > either.
>
> Yea,h it is actualy.
>
>
>
> > I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
> > the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
> > blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
> > theory is correct.
>
> not neccesarily.
>
> Bertie

Its the 'magic bird' theory!

See, the bird first scared the aircrew, then was sucked through Eng1,
expelled at .95 mach where it then was carried up and over the plane
to the other engine where it hit John Connolly in the wrist.

Nah, to simple.

I think I heard from a friend who saw it on the internet at his
cousin's house that Dick Cheney was wheeling through Central Park with
a black box that had a big red button labelled "Set off airborne
thermite grenades on flight 1549".

JUST LIKE 9-11 !!!

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote in
> > Steve Pope wrote:
> >
> >> The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
> >> and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
> >> instead of a double birstrike, there was a single
> >> birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
> >> design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
> >> power also?
> >
> > NIL
>
> nope, wrong again planespotter

Expecting you to give an example would be pretty futile I expect.

Why do engines have independent fuel systems for example ?

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

harry k wrote:

> I hope the final accident report is published here

Have you seen how large they typically are ? It'll be on the NTSB site
when it comes out.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Steve Pope wrote:

> > wrote:
>
> >On Jan 25, 10:34 am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> > The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
> > simultaneously.
>
> Yep
>
> > It was birds in both.
>
> Not yet demonstrated. The other possibility is some other TBD
> flaw causes the other engine to lose power even though it
> did not ingest a bird.

Act of God maybe ?

Graham

And please trim the stupid groups Bertei adds. It's kook fodder.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

vaughn wrote:

> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong

You're confusing it with 'consensus' e.g. AGW.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> (Steve Pope) wrote> vaughn
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
> >> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
> >> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
> >> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
> >> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
> >
> > Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
> > each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
> > either.
>
> Yeah it is actualy.

Statistically it is simply the square of a single bird strike. Probably
plus some other factors to make it more likely because birds often fly
in flocks.

Graham

Now Bertei is removing groups ! <sigh>

[Eeyore[_2_]]

"Gary L. Burnore" wrote:

> "Gregory Hall" > wrote:
> >
> >Maybe the bird stuck its tongue into the engine?
>
> Or, quite possibly, the pilot was laughing so hard at you for losing your
> DataBasix account for net abuse.......

My God ! Is it even possible to lose one of their accounts. I thought they were
'pro-abuse'.

Graham

[[email protected]]

On Jan 25, 11:13*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> > wrote:
> >On Jan 25, 10:34*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> > The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
> > simultaneously.
>
> Yep
>
> > It was birds in both.
>
> Not yet demonstrated. *The other possibility is some other TBD
> flaw causes the other engine to lose power even though it
> did not ingest a bird.
>
> Steve

Lemme see. The pilots said they encountered a big flock of big birds.
Thumps were heard and both engines quit at the same time. Each engine
has independent fuel and control systems for safety so that one can't
do something that affects the other.
So birds went into one but not the other? I'd bet that they'll
find bird damage in both. Lots of it.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> (Steve Pope) wrote> vaughn
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
>> >> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
>> >> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
>> >> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
>> >> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>> >
>> > Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
>> > each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
>> > either.
>>
>> Yeah it is actualy.
>
> Statistically it is simply the square of a single bird strike. Probably
> plus some other factors to make it more likely because birds often fly
> in flocks.
>
> Graham
>
> Now Bertei is removing groups ! <sigh>
>

Netkkkoping fjukktard.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> vaughn wrote:
>
>> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong
>
> You're confusing it with 'consensus' e.g. AGW.
>

Planespotting fjukkkkkkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:ca87032c-7532-474f-9d2f-f178f34ba2b7
@m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 25, 9:59*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> (Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3
>> @blue.rahul.net:
>>
>> > vaughn > wrote:
>>
>> >> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
>> >> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
>> >> other engine" likely. *It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
>> >> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
>> >> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>>
>> > Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
>> > each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
>> > either.
>>
>> Yea,h it is actualy.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
>> > the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
>> > blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
>> > theory is correct.
>>
>> not neccesarily.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Its the 'magic bird' theory!
>
> See, the bird first scared the aircrew, then was sucked through Eng1,
> expelled at .95 mach where it then was carried up and over the plane
> to the other engine where it hit John Connolly in the wrist.
>
> Nah, to simple.
>
> I think I heard from a friend who saw it on the internet at his
> cousin's house that Dick Cheney was wheeling through Central Park with
> a black box that had a big red button labelled "Set off airborne
> thermite grenades on flight 1549".
>
> JUST LIKE 9-11 !!!


Oh no! Don' tgive them ideas! Those fukkers give me a headache.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote in
>> > Steve Pope wrote:
>> >
>> >> The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
>> >> and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
>> >> instead of a double birstrike, there was a single
>> >> birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
>> >> design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
>> >> power also?
>> >
>> > NIL
>>
>> nope, wrong again planespotter
>
> Expecting you to give an example would be pretty futile I expect.
>
> Why do engines have independent fuel systems for example ?

Blow me you nigel fjukkwit.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> harry k wrote:
>
>> I hope the final accident report is published here
>
> Have you seen how large they typically are ? It'll be on the NTSB site
> when it comes out.


Won't stiop you from givng your worthless opinion in th emeantime theough
eh planespotter?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 25, 10:34 am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>> > The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
>> > simultaneously.
>>
>> Yep
>>
>> > It was birds in both.
>>
>> Not yet demonstrated. The other possibility is some other TBD
>> flaw causes the other engine to lose power even though it
>> did not ingest a bird.
>
> Act of God maybe ?
>
> Graham
>
> And please trim the stupid groups Bertei adds. It's kook fodder.


Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> "Gary L. Burnore" wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Hall" > wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe the bird stuck its tongue into the engine?
>>
>> Or, quite possibly, the pilot was laughing so hard at you for losing
>> your DataBasix account for net abuse.......
>
> My God ! Is it even possible to lose one of their accounts. I thought
> they were 'pro-abuse'.


Sez netkkkkoping nigel. Just because nobody ever pays any attention to your
netkopping attempts doesn;t mean that there aren't some actual legit
grounds for TOSsing someone, fjukkkwit


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

wrote in news:6204768e-ddc4-4337-8bcf-
:

> On Jan 25, 11:13*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jan 25, 10:34*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
>> > The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
>> > simultaneously.
>>
>> Yep
>>
>> > It was birds in both.
>>
>> Not yet demonstrated. *The other possibility is some other TBD
>> flaw causes the other engine to lose power even though it
>> did not ingest a bird.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Lemme see. The pilots said they encountered a big flock of big birds.
> Thumps were heard and both engines quit at the same time. Each engine
> has independent fuel and control systems for safety so that one can't
> do something that affects the other.
> So birds went into one but not the other? I'd bet that they'll
> find bird damage in both. Lots of it.

it isn't neccesary to have actual structural damage in th ecore to have had
the engine flamed out by a bird strike. They happen all the time with no
damage, even in the core. but that much bone and feather can cause a flame
out


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Eeyore > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore > wrote in
>>> > Steve Pope wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
>>> >> and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
>>> >> instead of a double birstrike, there was a single
>>> >> birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
>>> >> design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
>>> >> power also?
>>> >
>>> > NIL
>>>
>>> nope, wrong again planespotter
>>
>> Expecting you to give an example would be pretty futile I expect.
>>
>> Why do engines have independent fuel systems for example ?
>
> Blow me you nigel fjukkwit.
>
>
> Bertie

Take some Viagra so he can at least find it, wanna be fat ass.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Eeyore > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> "Gary L. Burnore" wrote:
>>
>>> "Gregory Hall" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Maybe the bird stuck its tongue into the engine?
>>>
>>> Or, quite possibly, the pilot was laughing so hard at you for losing
>>> your DataBasix account for net abuse.......
>>
>> My God ! Is it even possible to lose one of their accounts. I thought
>> they were 'pro-abuse'.
>
>
> Sez netkkkkoping nigel. Just because nobody ever pays any attention to
> your
> netkopping attempts doesn;t mean that there aren't some actual legit
> grounds for TOSsing someone, fjukkkwit
>
>
> Bertie

No, I think you are a pretty good example that many ISPs could care less
about the Usenet.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Eeyore > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> vaughn wrote:
>>
>>> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong
>>
>> You're confusing it with 'consensus' e.g. AGW.
>>
>
> Planespotting fjukkkkkkwit.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Diaper spotting retard.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Eeyore > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> (Steve Pope) wrote> vaughn
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
>>> >> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
>>> >> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
>>> >> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
>>> >> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>>> >
>>> > Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
>>> > each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
>>> > either.
>>>
>>> Yeah it is actualy.
>>
>> Statistically it is simply the square of a single bird strike. Probably
>> plus some other factors to make it more likely because birds often fly
>> in flocks.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>> Now Bertei is removing groups ! <sigh>
>>
>
> Netkkkoping fjukktard.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>

Wanna be retard.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in news:ca87032c-7532-474f-9d2f-f178f34ba2b7
> @m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jan 25, 9:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> (Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3
>>> @blue.rahul.net:
>>>
>>> > vaughn > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
>>> >> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
>>> >> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
>>> >> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
>>> >> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>>>
>>> > Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
>>> > each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
>>> > either.
>>>
>>> Yea,h it is actualy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
>>> > the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
>>> > blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
>>> > theory is correct.
>>>
>>> not neccesarily.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Its the 'magic bird' theory!
>>
>> See, the bird first scared the aircrew, then was sucked through Eng1,
>> expelled at .95 mach where it then was carried up and over the plane
>> to the other engine where it hit John Connolly in the wrist.
>>
>> Nah, to simple.
>>
>> I think I heard from a friend who saw it on the internet at his
>> cousin's house that Dick Cheney was wheeling through Central Park with
>> a black box that had a big red button labelled "Set off airborne
>> thermite grenades on flight 1549".
>>
>> JUST LIKE 9-11 !!!
>
>
> Oh no! Don' tgive them ideas! Those fukkers give me a headache.
>
> Bertie

Lay off the drug and alcohol.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Orsen Wells w/Citizen Cain" > wrote in news:4da06
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> (Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3
>>> @blue.rahul.net:
>>>
>>>> vaughn > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
>>>>> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
>>>>> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
>>>>> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong,
>>>>> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
>>>> each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
>>>> either.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yea,h it is actualy.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
>>>> the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
>>>> blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
>>>> theory is correct.
>>>
>>> not neccesarily.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> MAYBE THE GOVERNMENT DID IT LIKE THEY DID 9-11
>>
>
> And why shouldn't they? If they can't do it who could? Smersh?
>
> bertie

Don't you just love to perpetuate bull**** on the pilot group.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Eeyore > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Jan 25, 10:34 am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>>
>>> > The flight data recorder showed that both engines died
>>> > simultaneously.
>>>
>>> Yep
>>>
>>> > It was birds in both.
>>>
>>> Not yet demonstrated. The other possibility is some other TBD
>>> flaw causes the other engine to lose power even though it
>>> did not ingest a bird.
>>
>> Act of God maybe ?
>>
>> Graham
>>
>> And please trim the stupid groups Bertei adds. It's kook fodder.
>
>
> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
>
> Bertie

You're too clueless to judge Mx, much less anyone else, retard.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Eeyore > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> harry k wrote:
>>
>>> I hope the final accident report is published here
>>
>> Have you seen how large they typically are ? It'll be on the NTSB site
>> when it comes out.
>
>
> Won't stiop you from givng your worthless opinion in th emeantime theough
> eh planespotter?
>
>
>
> Bertie

Says the poster child for worthless opinions.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote in news:ca87032c-7532-474f-9d2f-
f178f34ba2b7
>> @m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 9:59 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> (Steve Pope) wrote in news:glj9o8$5mp$3
>>>> @blue.rahul.net:
>>>>
>>>> > vaughn > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
>>>> >> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
>>>> >> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
>>>> >> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly
wrong,
>>>> >> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>>>>
>>>> > Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
>>>> > each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
>>>> > either.
>>>>
>>>> Yea,h it is actualy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I'm not sure if you expect bird remains in an engine that lay at
>>>> > the bottom of the Hudson for a week, but there should be
>>>> > blade damage consistent with sucking a bird if the double-bird
>>>> > theory is correct.
>>>>
>>>> not neccesarily.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Its the 'magic bird' theory!
>>>
>>> See, the bird first scared the aircrew, then was sucked through
Eng1,
>>> expelled at .95 mach where it then was carried up and over the plane
>>> to the other engine where it hit John Connolly in the wrist.
>>>
>>> Nah, to simple.
>>>
>>> I think I heard from a friend who saw it on the internet at his
>>> cousin's house that Dick Cheney was wheeling through Central Park
with
>>> a black box that had a big red button labelled "Set off airborne
>>> thermite grenades on flight 1549".
>>>
>>> JUST LIKE 9-11 !!!
>>
>>
>> Oh no! Don' tgive them ideas! Those fukkers give me a headache.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Lay off the drug and alcohol.
>


Oh thanks for the good advice Maxie!



I'll take it under close advisement considerign the source.

Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eeyore > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Steve Pope) wrote> vaughn
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not
>>>> >> in any way make "some design flaw or maintenance issue of the
>>>> >> other engine" likely. It is possible I suppose, but not likely.
>>>> >> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly
wrong,
>>>> >> but it is dangerous to bet against it.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sure, although I'm not sure "conventional wisdom" states that
>>>> > each engine ingesting a bird simultaneously is all that likely
>>>> > either.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah it is actualy.
>>>
>>> Statistically it is simply the square of a single bird strike.
Probably
>>> plus some other factors to make it more likely because birds often
fly
>>> in flocks.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>>> Now Bertei is removing groups ! <sigh>
>>>
>>
>> Netkkkoping fjukktard.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> Wanna be retard.


Guide me oh master.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eeyore > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> vaughn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remember, "conventional wisdom" is sometimes spectacularly wrong
>>>
>>> You're confusing it with 'consensus' e.g. AGW.
>>>
>>
>> Planespotting fjukkkkkkwit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Diaper spotting retard.
>

Yep, i look for ****..



ooow ooow! There;s one now!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eeyore > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eeyore > wrote in
>>>> > Steve Pope wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The reports are there was a birdstrike and explosion
>>>> >> and both engines went silent. What are the odds that,
>>>> >> instead of a double birstrike, there was a single
>>>> >> birdstrike taking out one engine, but due to some
>>>> >> design flaw or maintenance issue the other engine lost
>>>> >> power also?
>>>> >
>>>> > NIL
>>>>
>>>> nope, wrong again planespotter
>>>
>>> Expecting you to give an example would be pretty futile I expect.
>>>
>>> Why do engines have independent fuel systems for example ?
>>
>> Blow me you nigel fjukkwit.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Take some Viagra so he can at least find it, wanna be fat ass.
>

Oh good one maxie.

Ouch!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eeyore > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> harry k wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hope the final accident report is published here
>>>
>>> Have you seen how large they typically are ? It'll be on the NTSB
>>> site when it comes out.
>>
>>
>> Won't stiop you from givng your worthless opinion in th emeantime
>> theough eh planespotter?
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Says the poster child for worthless opinions.


Yeh, ouch!


Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh!




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eeyore > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gary L. Burnore" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gregory Hall" > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >Maybe the bird stuck its tongue into the engine?
>>>>
>>>> Or, quite possibly, the pilot was laughing so hard at you for
losing
>>>> your DataBasix account for net abuse.......
>>>
>>> My God ! Is it even possible to lose one of their accounts. I
thought
>>> they were 'pro-abuse'.
>>
>>
>> Sez netkkkkoping nigel. Just because nobody ever pays any attention
to
>> your
>> netkopping attempts doesn;t mean that there aren't some actual legit
>> grounds for TOSsing someone, fjukkkwit
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No, I think you are a pretty good example that many ISPs could care
less
> about the Usenet.
>
>

it's "couldn't" care less, fjukktard.

If they could care less than they must care at least a bit.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> > harry k wrote:
> >
> >> I hope the final accident report is published here
> >
> > Have you seen how large they typically are ? It'll be on the NTSB site
> > when it comes out.
>
> Won't stiop you from givng your worthless opinion in th emeantime theough
> eh planespotter?

I don't think the FACTS are in any doubt on this one.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.

Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was whose
fodder there, eh ?

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

Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for one of
the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to one another
with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally communicate with one
another through body language, and most communications we would
recognize as "meow" are specifically for human interaction[citation
needed].

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Just because nobody ever pays any attention to your
> netkopping attempts

Awwwww baby !


> doesn;t mean that there aren't some actual legit
> grounds for TOSsing someone

Yes, I had someone TOSsed last week.

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> > harry k wrote:
>> >
>> >> I hope the final accident report is published here
>> >
>> > Have you seen how large they typically are ? It'll be on the NTSB
>> > site when it comes out.
>>
>> Won't stiop you from givng your worthless opinion in th emeantime
>> theough eh planespotter?
>
> I don't think the FACTS are in any doubt on this one.

You're not talking fact, fjukktard, you're spouting media conjecture, you
planespotting turd



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
>
> Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was whose
> fodder there, eh ?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
>
> Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for one of
> the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to one another
> with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally communicate with one
> another through body language, and most communications we would
> recognize as "meow" are specifically for human interaction[citation
> needed].
>
> Graham
>


Good god you're clueless.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Just because nobody ever pays any attention to your
>> netkopping attempts
>
> Awwwww baby !
>
>
>> doesn;t mean that there aren't some actual legit
>> grounds for TOSsing someone
>
> Yes, I had someone TOSsed last week.


GOd you're easy.


Bertie

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
> >
> > Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was whose
> > fodder there, eh ?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
> >
> > Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for one of
> > the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to one another
> > with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally communicate with one
> > another through body language, and most communications we would
> > recognize as "meow" are specifically for human interaction[citation
> > needed].
>
> Good god you're clueless.
>
> Bertie

You're Meowless. Looks like Uncle Antny's moved too.

Graham

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >
>> >> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
>> >
>> > Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was whose
>> > fodder there, eh ?
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
>> >
>> > Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for one of
>> > the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to one
>> > another
>> > with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally communicate with one
>> > another through body language, and most communications we would
>> > recognize as "meow" are specifically for human interaction[citation
>> > needed].
>>
>> Good god you're clueless.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're Meowless. Looks like Uncle Antny's moved too.
>
> Graham
>

He's a friggin' dinosaur and too lame to know it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >
>> >> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
>> >
>> > Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was
>> > whose fodder there, eh ?
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
>> >
>> > Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for one
>> > of the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to one
>> > another with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally communicate
>> > with one another through body language, and most communications we
>> > would recognize as "meow" are specifically for human
>> > interaction[citation needed].
>>
>> Good god you're clueless.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You're Meowless. Looks like Uncle Antny's moved too.
>

Miss him do you?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in news:HaPhl.4228$mq5.3631
@newsfe23.iad:

>
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore > wrote
>>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
>>> >
>>> > Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was
whose
>>> > fodder there, eh ?
>>> >
>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
>>> >
>>> > Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for one
of
>>> > the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to one
>>> > another
>>> > with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally communicate with
one
>>> > another through body language, and most communications we would
>>> > recognize as "meow" are specifically for human interaction
[citation
>>> > needed].
>>>
>>> Good god you're clueless.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> You're Meowless. Looks like Uncle Antny's moved too.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
> He's a friggin' dinosaur and too lame to know it.
>
>

Snort !


Bertie
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 12:27*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Eeyore > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> Eeyore > wrote
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> >> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
>
> >> > Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was
> >> > whose fodder there, eh ?
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
>
> >> > Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for one
> >> > of the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to one
> >> > another with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally communicate
> >> > with one another through body language, and most communications we
> >> > would recognize as "meow" are specifically for human
> >> > interaction[citation needed].
>
> >> Good god you're clueless.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > You're Meowless. Looks like Uncle Antny's moved too.
>
> Miss him do you?
>
> Bertie

They are just too ashamed to admit that RAP stands
rec.Anthony.piloting.

He is the lift beneath their wings <chortle>. They are the drag in
his dress.

"They are my people, I am their sovereign, I love them. PULL!"

[metro-golden-meower]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 05:31:14 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:

>Eeyore > wrote in
:
>
>>
>>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Just because nobody ever pays any attention to your
>>> netkopping attempts
>>
>> Awwwww baby !
>>
>>
>>> doesn;t mean that there aren't some actual legit
>>> grounds for TOSsing someone
>>
>> Yes, I had someone TOSsed last week.
>
>
>GOd you're easy.

which ng is this ****wit in, bertie, so i can add it to my x-posts?

>Bertie

[george]

On Feb 4, 1:40*am, wrote:

> They are just too ashamed to admit that RAP stands
> rec.Anthony.piloting.
>
> He is the lift beneath their wings <chortle>. *They are the drag in
> his dress.
>
> "They are my people, I am their sovereign, I love them. *PULL!"

:-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

metro-golden-meower > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 05:31:14 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> > wrote:
>
>>Eeyore > wrote in
:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just because nobody ever pays any attention to your
>>>> netkopping attempts
>>>
>>> Awwwww baby !
>>>
>>>
>>>> doesn;t mean that there aren't some actual legit
>>>> grounds for TOSsing someone
>>>
>>> Yes, I had someone TOSsed last week.
>>
>>
>>GOd you're easy.
>
> which ng is this ****wit in, bertie, so i can add it to my x-posts?

Graham?
He's in alt.disasters.aviation, but he poasts in a number of froups in
whihc he is a pariah. I just tried to find out which other froups , but
ironically, hes been banned fomr google groups!

Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwh!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

wrote in
:

> On Feb 3, 12:27*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> innews:4987BD8B.8E9
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> Eeyore > wrote
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
>>
>> >> > Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was
>> >> > whose fodder there, eh ?
>>
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
>>
>> >> > Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for
>> >> > one of the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize
>> >> > to one another with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally
>> >> > communicate with one another through body language, and most
>> >> > communications we would recognize as "meow" are specifically for
>> >> > human interaction[citation needed].
>>
>> >> Good god you're clueless.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > You're Meowless. Looks like Uncle Antny's moved too.
>>
>> Miss him do you?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> They are just too ashamed to admit that RAP stands
> rec.Anthony.piloting.
>
> He is the lift beneath their wings <chortle>. They are the drag in
> his dress.
>
> "They are my people, I am their sovereign, I love them. PULL!"
>

And they always do...

Bertie

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> Eeyore > wrote
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
> >> >
> >> > Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was
> >> > whose fodder there, eh ?
> >> >
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
> >> >
> >> > Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for one
> >> > of the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to one
> >> > another with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally communicate
> >> > with one another through body language, and most communications we
> >> > would recognize as "meow" are specifically for human
> >> > interaction[citation needed].
> >>
> >> Good god you're clueless.
> >>
> >> Bertie
> >
> > You're Meowless. Looks like Uncle Antny's moved too.
>
> Miss him do you?
>
> Bertie

I dare say he misses my phone calls.

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Actually, you're k00k fodder pooh pooh.
>> >> >
>> >> > Did you know The Meow no longer has a Wikipedia entry ? Who was
>> >> > whose fodder there, eh ?
>> >> >
>> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow
>> >> >
>> >> > Meow, miaow, miau, mew and others, are different spellings for
one
>> >> > of the sounds made by cats. While cats occasionally vocalize to
one
>> >> > another with purrs, growls, and screams, they generally
communicate
>> >> > with one another through body language, and most communications
we
>> >> > would recognize as "meow" are specifically for human
>> >> > interaction[citation needed].
>> >>
>> >> Good god you're clueless.
>> >>
>> >> Bertie
>> >
>> > You're Meowless. Looks like Uncle Antny's moved too.
>>
>> Miss him do you?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I dare say he misses my phone calls.
>
> Graham
>

God you're a fjukktard.


Bertie