Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:34:36 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:\

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:13:28 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Secondly, there are literally thousands of pilots certificated as
commercial pilots in the United States who have never flown anything
more complicated than a light complex.

This claim *might* have been more credible had it come from someone who
could spell "certified" correctly.

From dictionary.com:

certificate

Main Entry: cer·tif·i·cate
Pronunciation: \-?ti-f?-?ka-t\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cer·tif·i·cat·ed; cer·tif·i·cat·ing
Date: 1818: to testify to or authorize by a certificate;
especially : certify

It's a good idea to look things up before assuming they're wrong
and especially before claiming they're wrong in public.


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

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.

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.

Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
my side,

No one is against you. No one is for you, either.

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.

Of course he didn't. Which is unfortunate, since you really are either
incompetent or a troll. 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, just start using a
bloody new one and start fresh. Stop vommiting your ego insecurities all
over Usenet. You screwed up - BFD. You'll live. Move on.

I know this has a large probability of being a pointless exercise, but I'll
try it anyway:

When you make assertions and one or more turn out to be wrong and make you
look stupid - remember you are in a lot of good company (i.e. you're
human.) So try showing some maturity and own up to the mistake as
succinctly and graciously as possible. If you can't manage that (it is
monumentally tough and I know real character when I see a genuine mea
culpa,) then try starting fresh like I suggested in my harsh response
above. And take the mistake as a learning point: specifically, that you
should always research before you post, and if you can't, put plenty of
qualifiers in your future assertions.

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.

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.

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

"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

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote:

"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.

No, I'm saying that someone who just suddenly CHANGES sides like that is
PROBABLY either suffering something or has been suborned.

From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
another for years. Then I come along and, innocently, 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."

This shouldn't even have been controversial but apparently Mxsmanic saw
it and has a bee in his bonnet about such things, so he posts attacking
me. And Hatunen follows him and starts posting attacking Mxsmanic.

For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I wrote,
so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying to frame
me as some kind of moron or incompetent. All the while just making
himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars, and being flamed by Hatunen
and several other people he's apparently made enemies of over the years.

Until last week, when all of a sudden Hatunen starts flaming me instead,
apparently having gone over to Mxsmanic's side.

You aren't enemies with someone for years and then suddenly take their
side one day without some kind of precipitating incident. Head injury,
payoff, something. Considering also that Mxsmanic is simply wrong, it's
not like Hatunen just had an epiphany and saw the light or something.
That kind of thing only goes in the opposite direction.

If you say you're sure he hasn't been suborned, then I'd like to know
what you think DID convince Hatunen to abruptly switch sides in this
little dispute.

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.

Until now. He's just called me several nasty names in a couple of recent
posts.

He disagrees with Mxsmanic frequently, as do many of us,

or rather, he used to,

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.

Again, until now. Personal animosity against me is dripping from his
posts of June 29 and July 1 -- condescension, lecturing at me like I'm
some wayward little child, the whole works. Standard-issue Usenet flaming
of the first kind: portray your opponent as an imbecile in need of
special hand-holding in order to discredit whatever he's been saying.
(The second kind would be to suggest, somewhat slyly, sexual peccadilloes
or outright perversion on your opponent's part; the third is simply to
come right out and blast him or her with torrents of vulgar profanity,
namecalling, accusations, and other unsubtle invective. All three amount
to logically-invalid ad hominem arguments of course.)

The key thing is that in flaming me in any of those ways he shows that he
now considers me to BE his opponent, rather than an ally against
Mxsmanic. His having switched sides is thus apparent; by the logic of
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and the evident fact that he now
regards me as an enemy, plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy,
one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the only
remaining question is why.

The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could. If Mxsmanic has
discovered some strong means of influencing others all of a sudden, it's
conceivable that he might suborn all of us into supporting his craziness.
Knowing the mechanism would allow this hazard to be better quantified.
For instance, if it's simple blackmail I'm immune, lacking any dirt in my
past for him to dig up, but he could turn the rest of the people here to
his side and then have them all gang up and hound me mercilessly about
Usenet with vicious flaming, effectively neutralizing me by discrediting
me under this name. (I'd just start using a new one, but presumably if I
touched this topic again history would repeat itself, with my words and a
Google search by Mxsmanic bringing the whole lot of 'em down on my head
like a bag of hammers.) On the other hand, if he has some kind of zombie
slave potion he's feeding people, I'd have to meet him in person under
circumstances that enabled him to slip me a mickey to be vulnerable, and
it's likely only a handful of people here are actually at risk of being
suborned. If he has some sort of bogus "proof" of his nonsense sufficient
to fool imbeciles, it won't work on me. If it's a mind control ray, I'm
in trouble -- I left my tinfoil hat behind the last time I moved
house. :-)

Wingnut writes:

From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
another for years.

As hard as it may be to believe, some people are neither for nor against each
other.

For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I wrote,
so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying to frame
me as some kind of moron or incompetent.

I don't even remember what you wrote, so it can hardly leave me incensed.

All the while just making
himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a
brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars ...

Even if that were true, I'm not sure why I should care what anyone on
rec.arts.tv thinks about aviation. But it does make me smile (which is rare
these days, as I have little to smile about).

... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...

OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)

... one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the only
remaining question is why.

The Trilateral Illuminati Freemasons Commission insisted--it was an essential
step in their quest for world domination and mind-control. We are but pawns in
the Grand Plan. I know the location of the keystone, and I have tickets for
the Rose Line.

The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly
switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could.

And civilization--as we know it--would crumble into dust.

Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote:

"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.

No, I'm saying that someone who just suddenly CHANGES sides like that is
PROBABLY either suffering something or has been suborned.

From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one
another for years. Then I come along and, innocently, 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."

Again, as I note in another post rsponding to this assertion,
that wasn't the quote in question.

[Lines and lines of diatribe deleted. My, you do carry on.]

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *