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


"Ron" wrote in message
.. .

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

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

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

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

-c


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

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

Ron