If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jun 30, 10:44*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a liar at worst. Is this the quote where you say I called you a liar? I believe you have me mistaken for someone else. I've been known to disagree strongly with people on occasion but I don't recall ever calling someone a liar even in the most heated of exchanges. FWIW, I will make it quite clear for you in this post. I do NOT consider you a liar. I DO disagree on occasion with your opinions and have so stated. What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine, spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other direction. I have no feeling for either you or Mx at this point in time. I have disagreed many times with Mx on many issues as I am in disagreement with you now on your charges of being called a liar. It is true that I have at times taken a VERY strong stance on things Mx has presented on these forums. In this thread however, I'm seeing comment by Mx that I happen to agree with as well as comment from others here that I think it incorrect in answers being presented to him. On Usenet it's always a thread by thread situation when it comes to agreeing or disagreeing with someone's comment. If I thought you were correct in this thread or any other thread I was posting to I wouldn't hesitate to agree with you. Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something. This type of personal derogatory comment is part and parcel of exactly why I'm disagreeing with your input on this thread at this time. I won't respond in kind. All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and undermine mine. This "contest" thing seems quite important to you as you keep referring to it. It's not important to me at all. On Usenet I judge comment as either right or wrong in each sentence contributed. My opinion in any response I offer is based on that and that alone. I take no side for or against anyone here. Usenet isn't personal with me any longer. I gave that up a while ago. I suggest you do the same. The funny thing is it's clear from his retinue of loyal detractors that he's a notorious troll, but what's less clear is where from. I'm pretty familiar with the rec.arts.tv rogue's gallery by now ("trotsky", "Ubiquitous", "Sound of Trumpet", and several nymshifting trolls including "the homophobe", "the Obamaphobe", and the infamous Seamus MacRae) and "Mxsmanic" isn't one of them. I'm guessing that like "Lady Veteran" and "womanGoddess" before him he's a troll principally of other groups that has decided to add to rec.arts.tv's sources of woe temporarily for reasons probably beyond the ability of any sane mind to fathom. My interest is restricted to aviation matters. That's why I come here. Mx can be a troll but I really don't care what he is. If his posts with me are legit I handle them as I would any other on topic post. If he goes off topic or trolls me I simply disengage. I used to take people on head to head but I make an honest effort not to do that any more. It just isn't worth the trouble. If you see me in some other light or see any agreement from me relating to MX as an affront to you, I can't be responsible for that. As I say, I deal with individuals I meet on Usenet AS individuals, NOT as a member of any "group" for or against someone on the forum. Sorry you see things the way you do but as I've said, I can't be responsible for how you relate to me. All I can do is inform you that you're mistaken. Best to you, Dudley Henriques |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jun 30, 11:37*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:34 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: On Jun 30, 10:35*pm, Wingnut wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut wrote: Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these relentless and unpleasant criticisms. Dudley Henriques wrote; I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone here. *:-)))))))) Dudley Henriques Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and unpleasant criticisms". Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I was a liar, whether you intended to or not. I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all the years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or inferring that someone was a liar. It was in your post of June 28, at 11:13 am. It was a response to one of my posts countering one of Mxsmanic's, and it implied (though it didn't state outright) that I was lying on the topic of how much experience was implied by a commercial license. I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted dishonestly here. If you have the time of the post and the date of the post, please POST the post so it can be properly referenced in relation to your charge? Thank you Dudley Henriques |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jun 30, 11:37*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:34 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: On Jun 30, 10:35*pm, Wingnut wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote: On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut wrote: Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke these relentless and unpleasant criticisms. Dudley Henriques wrote; I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet. No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as anyone here. *:-)))))))) Dudley Henriques Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these "relentless and unpleasant criticisms". Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I was a liar, whether you intended to or not. I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all the years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or inferring that someone was a liar. It was in your post of June 28, at 11:13 am. It was a response to one of my posts countering one of Mxsmanic's, and it implied (though it didn't state outright) that I was lying on the topic of how much experience was implied by a commercial license. I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted dishonestly here. I just read the post you have referenced. It shows on my reader as post #256 in answer to your post referencing "Cessna strawmen". I'll be completely honest with you Wingnut, I don't believe any reasonable person reading my response to you will find anything even remotely coming close to calling you a "liar". I did disagree with your basic premise about the Cessna reference, and I even went VERY much out of my way to include not only a smile emoticon for you before submitting my comment but a LONG smile emoticon to emphasize the non aggressive nature of my response. I do realize at this point that you are obviously taking dissenting comment by others to indicate a personal attack directed at you. I can only tell you that in my case at least, you are grossly mistaken. I also believe I've spent enough time dealing with this non-issue, and suggest we drop it at this point and move on to more productive discussion. Dudley Henriques |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:27:06 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
Wingnut wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my side, No one is against you. On the contrary. I made what should have been a plain, uncontroversial statement and was attacked by Mxsmanic. I responded in my own defense and was promptly attacked again. Every subsequent time I've responded in my own defense, I've been attacked yet again, usually by Mxsmanic but sometimes by Dudley Henriques and now, suddenly, by Hatunen and yourself. I hadn't even seen you in this thread before. It doesn't therefore seem to me that you even have a dog in this race, so what prompted your sudden participation? suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a liar at worst. Provide a message ID reference and quote the sentence where he used the word "incompetent" in reference to you. He didn't actually use the word "incompetent". Rather, he was subtle enough to insinuate these things without stating them outright. Of course he didn't. Which is unfortunate, since you really are either incompetent or a troll. And you can quote me on that. **** you too, and the modem you dialed in on. It looks like my attackers are becoming more overt and vocal in their attacks. But why? I did nothing to provoke them. All I did, and I repeat, was say: "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed." Why should this be a "crime" for which I get "sentenced" to perpetual flaming by you and your buddies? Oh, yeah -- it shouldn't. The only reason why this is happening is because you and Mxsmanic are assholes and trolls. And you can quote me on that. I've never understood why anonymous posters seem to get their knickers in an uproar - probably nobody knows who you really and I personally don't care. If you've made your precious handle look bad But that's just it -- I haven't. A small number of people are acting hostile, apparently because yonder troll Mxsmanic has a few more admirers than originally suspected. I haven't done anything wrong. What I did was call Mxsmanic on some misbehavior of his, and now his tiny little handful of friends are leaping to his defense. And poorly; rather than trying to defend or excuse his actions, they're simply attacking his detractors. Really, do you honestly believe very many people will be swayed to Msxmanic's side by such an obviously bogus ad hominem argument as "Wingnut is an incompetent troll"? Most people are smarter than that. And the other two are Mxsmanic and yourself. :-) You screwed up - BFD. No. I did NOT screw up. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed." and more people agree with me than disagree with me. So far dozens of people have criticized Mxsmanic's position, and their criticisms have consisted largely of reasoned arguments. Meanwhile, how many people have criticized mine? Four, and their criticisms have consisted of such brilliantly logical arguments as "Wingnut is an incompetent troll". I think it's pretty clear which side is right and which is wrong, both on the evidence and if you regard it as a popularity contest. Which is what makes it odd that you would jump in at this late date and on the obviously losing side of the debate. Just a sucker for underdogs, perhaps, even when said underdogs are underdogs for the very good reason that they lack merit? Still, it's like you're a Leafs fan that suddenly walks into a Penguins bar wearing a Leafs jersey and says, loudly, "The Penguins suck and the Leafs rule!" Where I come from that's described aptly with the phrase "cruising for a bruising". I know this has a large probability of being a pointless exercise, but I'll try it anyway: (Jim Logajan goes on to spew a large number of similar ad hominem arguments, most of them boiling down to "Wingnut is stupid, therefore Mxsmanic's position is the one you should believe". When stated in such terms, however, it's obviously an invalid syllogism.) a genuine mea culpa I have nothing to apologize for. I stand by my position and against Mxsmanic's and certainly your ad hominem arguments and unpleasant, insulting bluster will never convince me to change my mind. Only reason and logic will. In fact, responding not only with invalid arguments but with increasingly shrill tones, hostility, verbal violence, and the threat of escalated verbal violence will do a lot to convince me that my original position is the correct one for me to take, both because if you were really on the side of truth and right you would not need to resort to such methods to try to convert me and because I believe it is not proper to reward such transparently coercive tactics by permitting them to succeed. If by sticking to my original position I make your coercive tactics fail, then I have done the world a great service, for every increment less effective such tactics are corresponds to an incremental reduction in the incentive of bullies like you to try to exploit such tactics against others. And so I repeat again the statement that has surprisingly provoked such a lot of vitriol from a small number of highly vocal nutcases: "Consider who would have been landing the plane if something had caused the pilot to also conk out, though. Then her prior flight experience would have become quite relevant indeed." P.S. your dishonest attempt to suppress my response from appearing in most of the newsgroups you attacked me in, to wit, your silent followup- to, has been neutralized. Methinks maybe you made the mistake of believing your own propaganda and, thus, the fatal error of thinking I'm *actually* an incompetent troll, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:55:13 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:37Â*pm, Wingnut wrote: I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted dishonestly here. If you have the time of the post and the date of the post, please POST the post so it can be properly referenced in relation to your charge? I'm sorry, but I don't feel that YOUR charge against me deserves further airtime. Repost it yourself if you feel the need but I have no intention of doing your own dirty work for you. Sorry. |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:38:12 +0000, ClassCastException wrote something.
I don't know what happened here. I normally use that name in another newsgroup, and Wingnut in this one. Some kind of malfunction with my news server I guess. |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
"Wingnut" wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a liar at worst. What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine, spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other direction. Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something. All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and undermine mine. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you must be incompetent or a liar or must have recently suffered a head injury or something. Usenet exists for the exchange of views and this thread has been boringly tame so far. Not even (to use an English expression) "handbags at 4 paces". And I can never ever recollect Hatunen being a detractor of anyone. He disagrees with Mxsmanic frequently, as do many of us, but that is just a simple exchange of views and I have never ever noticed a trace of personal animosity to anyone in any of his many postings over the years. -- JohnT |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a liar at worst. What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine, spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other direction. Being wrong is being wrong. Although the post eliciting your erroneous criticism was by Dudley Henriques, I'm not clear how my comment makes me an ally of Mixie. In any case, using faulty arguments to refute arguments is a bit problematic. Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something. All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and undermine mine. Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie. But he actually has been right on a couple of occasions and I have said so. I beleive once was in 2006 and again in 2007. The funny thing is it's clear from his retinue of loyal detractors that he's a notorious troll, but what's less clear is where from. I'm pretty familiar with the rec.arts.tv rogue's gallery by now ("trotsky", "Ubiquitous", "Sound of Trumpet", and several nymshifting trolls including "the homophobe", "the Obamaphobe", and the infamous Seamus MacRae) and "Mxsmanic" isn't one of them. I'm guessing that like "Lady Veteran" and "womanGoddess" before him he's a troll principally of other groups that has decided to add to rec.arts.tv's sources of woe temporarily for reasons probably beyond the ability of any sane mind to fathom. Ah. You see one fof the problems here is that this is all cross-posted to: (a) rec.aviation.piloting, (b) rec.travel.air, (c) rec.arts.movies.past-films, (d) rec.arts.tv, (e) alt.gossip.celebrities I can see how the topic is relevant to (a) and (b), the group I'm in, but the relevance to (c), (d) and (e) certainly hard to see. In fact, I think I'll reset Followups. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on my side, suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a liar at worst. What gives? You were the most vocal of Mxsmanic's detractors, yet now suddenly you're taking his side against me. Is he paying you, or providing some other consideration? Because I doubt you had a genuine, spontaneous change of heart. Not TO rather than FROM the dark side. That kind of thing is generally rare and generally only goes in the other direction. Being wrong is being wrong. Although the post eliciting your erroneous criticism was by Dudley Henriques, I'm not clear how my comment makes me an ally of Mixie. In any case, using faulty arguments to refute arguments is a bit problematic. Then again, maybe you've recently suffered a head injury or something. All I can say is this is disappointing and unfortunate. Nonetheless it still leaves Mxsmanic with what, two allies and at least a dozen detractors? Things are still not looking good for Mxsmanic, no matter what dishonest tricks he might be using to try to bolster his side and undermine mine. Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie. But he actually has been right on a couple of occasions and I have said so. I beleive once was in 2006 and again in 2007. I rather be a broken clock... airplanes...all they do is CRASH! Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands. You only hear about it when a rock star is in it.... and what about all those 'used' airplanes for sale? You buy one and you're dead. The Starmaker |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
The Starmaker wrote:
airplanes...all they do is CRASH! Usenet cross-posters ... all they do is TROLL! Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands. The NTSB knows: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm A total of 534 aviation fatalities in 2009 in the U.S. By comparison, allegedly 450 deaths per year occurred in the U.S. due to people falling out of bed: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mo...-involving-bed Possible supporting stats he http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/nursing.htm Another perspective: there were a total of 366 weather-caused deaths in the U.S.: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/sum09.pdf General NOAA weather hazard stats page: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml BOTTOM LINE: You ain't safe in bed or outdoors - so may as well have some fun flying! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot nearly crashes in IMC, Controller helps | pimenthal | Piloting | 32 | September 27th 05 01:06 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Toronto Plane Pilot Was Allowed To Land In "Red Alert" Weather | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 24 | August 19th 05 10:48 PM |
2 pilot/small airplane CRM | Mitty | Instrument Flight Rules | 35 | September 1st 04 11:19 PM |
non-pilot lands airplane | Cub Driver | Piloting | 3 | August 14th 04 12:08 AM |
Home Builders are Sick Sick Puppies | pacplyer | Home Built | 11 | March 26th 04 12:39 AM |