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 *

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

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!

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, 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.

Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong.
Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us was
right?

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.

I just call 'em as I see 'em. It seems you're a fair-weather ally. For a
while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's
nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off
with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify
to provoke you. Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I
can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather
than I did something to push you away from mine.

Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I
continue to stand by what I said:

"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."

(Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post
in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do
I?)

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, 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.

Yes, but previously you were saying Mxsmanic was the one that was wrong.
Now you're attacking me. What changed your mind regarding which of us was
right?

I hate to be trite, but two wrongs don't make a right.

But in this case I never said Mixie was right. Mixie wasn't the
poster in question. In fact, the exchange in qustion was:

Dudley Henriques:

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.

You:

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

You accused Dudley of spelling a word incorrectly although he was
using a perfectly good word. And you were wrong.

I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a
sock puppet of Mixie's.



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.

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

As do I.

It seems you're a fair-weather ally.

Ally? You seem to think it's a war. I'm all for you telling Mixie
or Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong
yourself.

For a
while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's
nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off
with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify
to provoke you.

That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but
it wasn't. So that makes you wrong again. It also tells me qutie
a bit about you.

Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I
can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather
than I did something to push you away from mine.

Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I
continue to stand by what I said:

"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."

As I note above, that wasn't the quote in question.

(Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post
in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do
I?)

Attack post? That comment tells me even more about you.

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

"Wingnut" wrote in message
...


I just call 'em as I see 'em. It seems you're a fair-weather ally. For a
while you and I were both taking the same side against Mxsmanic's
nonsense, but then suddenly a few days ago you turned on me and fired off
with both barrels, and the devil of it is I did nothing I could identify
to provoke you. Nothing I said should logically have offended you. All I
can guess is Mxsmanic did something to pull you over to his side, rather
than I did something to push you away from mine.

Regardless of your undiplomatic and vague assertions that I'm "wrong", I
continue to stand by what I said:

"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."

(Followup setting ignored; I don't want someone seeing your attack post
in one of the other three groups and not also seeing my rebuttal, now, do
I?)

http://www.rofl.name/lolcity/