Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

"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

On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:
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.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Oct 5, 10:30 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:

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.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.

Correction:

Several years ago due to problems with email, I used a different
alias. But beyond that, my aliases has always been the same.

In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
post in this group.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 5, 10:30 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:

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.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one
that I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the
Internet.

Correction:

Several years ago due to problems with email, I used a different
alias. But beyond that, my aliases has always been the same.

In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
post in this group.


Yeh, right.


Bertie

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ups.com...

In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
post in this group.

Fair enough. Just understand then that on occasion somebody comes in here
claiming that their physics trumps established, documented science, and
usually these people don't actually fly airplanes.

Of course, actually flying airplanes is only relevant because 1) this is a
"piloting" newsgroup and 2) lots of people come out on the internet claiming
to prove or disprove everything, such as 9/11 conspiracies, but they have
nothing to show for it.

Somebody else posted a link to the SR-71 Blackbird flight manual. I
daresay, the people who developed that understood aviation a whole hell of a
lot better than most engineers, and so whatever science they used to derive
that design (and the P-38, and the U-2) is good enough for me. To suggest
that the likes of Kelly Johnson's understanding of aerodynamics is flawed in
a pilot's forum is going to be met with hostility by many here. Especially
if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people who have
previoulsy challenged aviation here.

-c

Gatt writes:

Especially
if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people who have
previoulsy challenged aviation here.

I have never seen anyone challenge aviation here. I have seen people refuse
to be intimidated by the yelping alpha dogs and playground bullies, but that's
quite different.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gatt writes:

Especially
if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people
who have previoulsy challenged aviation here.

I have never seen anyone challenge aviation here.

You're an idiot.l



Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:
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.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.



Snort!


Bertie

"Gatt" wrote:
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.

What name might that be?

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Gatt" wrote:
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.

What name might that be?

Don't remember. IIRC he was babbling about how Bournouli was wrong and how
upper camber is irrelvant. Do you remember?

-c