Probably half the people posting on Usenet are not who they say they are or
haven't done the things they say they have done. Even if you ARE who you say
you are on Usenet, it's STILL incumbent on those reading what is written to
do their own research to separate fact from fiction.
Only a total fool takes Usenet at face value. Everything posted on Usenet is
questionable.
When you come to Usenet, you are well advised not to take it seriously. Your
concern for example about this poster being an imposter is simply Usenet 101
for the average reader out here and certainly not worth all the trouble you
are going to in "exposing" this person.
Learn to take Usenet for what it is and it will save you a lot of trouble.
On Usenet, nobody cares for these long drawn out "investigations" started by
some individual to "expose" somebody they are mad at, don't believe, or
dislike for some reason. It just takes up our bandwidth and is a total waste
of time .
If this guy is a phony, his posted information will disclose it soon enough
for those who know, and for the rest it doesn't matter anyway.
Hell, I've been posting on Usenet for years under my own name. There are
people out here who know me personally. Even with that, there is still no
absolute proof that what you are reading right now has been posted by me and
not someone else. Trust me on this one; it doesn't matter.
Typical Usenet example as follows;
I was underposted by an individual who wanted to tell the entire world that
I wasn't Dudley Henriques. He said he could prove that because he knew
Dudley Henriques personally and knew where he was.
My wife immediately sent him an email asking him to PLEASE go immediately
and ask the real Dudley Henriques if he liked to do yard work and if so,
would he consider coming home right away, since the imposter she had been
living with for 40 years absolutely hated to do yardwork!!.
That's Usenet my friend! Just take it as it is and enjoy it for WHAT it is.
Trying to change it is a lesson in futility
:-)))
Dudley Henriques (But is it
REALLY???????????????????????????????????????????? ?? :-)



"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jay Beckman wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
Every now and then we get a contentious, obnoxious know-it-all who in
fact
has only rudimentary knowledge of aviation.

Snip Cold Hard Truth

Very well said CJ...very well said.

An recent example is one poster (in another group) who claimed to be a
'naval aviator' in Vietnam and later flew privately.
His knowledge of aerodynamics was such that he 'knew' heavy aircraft
couldn't fly at low altitudes because the low pressure area under the
wing would suck the aircraft straight into the ground..
So there you go ground effect is an invention of those lift fairies :-)

Message exerpts to keep you smiling

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
Al... has no one informed you that you can't fly a jumbo jet at max
speed
anywhere near the ground? There's a rather large lift vacuum
underneath
that would pull it immediately into the ground.

Claim 1
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
It's not difficult at all to understand... but having been a Marine
Aviator
during Viet Nam and a pilot in more recent times, I have somehwat of
a grip on the way an aircraft functions and a definite knowledge of the
numbers and types of parts that sinplt do NOT disintegrate.

Claim2
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
One didn't have to be a military 'pilot' to fly the back seat of an
OV-10a Bronco
on flare missions to be considered an 'aviator'. Never jump to
conclusions...
but since you looked, maybe you could also look up ownership of N-5848A

and it's pilot's logs.

Note: we did and he isn't the registered owner. No big shock there
but do d search and read up on the piloting skills of the 'pilot'

Claim3
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
the mere act of takeoff and achieving cruise altitude requires roughly
20%
of whatever fuel load was placed on the aircraft,