Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Jul 4, 5:21*pm, a wrote:
On Jul 4, 3:26*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:



On Jul 4, 12:30*pm, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a
sock puppet of Mixie's.

Surely you jest? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))
Best way to eliminate this laughable mystery would be to have someone
who knows me personally on the forum through private email write to me
then ask them what was said in our private email. Jim Logajan could do
that if you wish. Personally I would hope you are a much better judge
of character than having to do this as I see it as a waste of
bandwidth, but what the hell...........have a go if you wish;
otherwise, you have my word that what you are postulating as a
possibility is a waste of your "thinking time" :-))
Dudley Henriques

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

I can't speak for you, Dudley, but I would be concerned about the
opinions others might have of me only if I valued their opinion.

It's a shame. There was a time on this forum when I valued opinion and
had my opinion valued. That was LONG ago :-)
Dudley Henriques

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:30:45 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

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.

So, you're saying BOTH of us are wrong?

That's impossible by the Law of the Excluded Middle.

I say P and Mxsmanic says ~P, where P is:

"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."

Now, either P or ~P. Either I'm right or Mxsmanic is right. If you claim
that I'm wrong, then you claim that Mxsmanic is right, and I am being
quite fair in characterizing you as having taken his side in the dispute
over P vs. ~P.

(Actually, as near as I can tell the dispute is really over the implied
statement that her prior flight experience would have been an advantage.
Were Mxsmanic's hilarious claim that it would have been a *dis*advantage
to somehow amazingly turn out to be true, upending decades of research on
learning curves and cognitive science, then P itself would actually be
supported by this -- her prior flight experience would indeed have been
relevant, though not in the way I intended to imply.)

Regardless of all of the above, either P or ~P. You cannot support, or
oppose, both simultaneously.

(And don't give me any guff about Gödel incompleteness, either, or mark
my words I'll turn this thread into the kind of memorable event that
leaves whole newsgroup populations traumatized and fearful of newbies for
years afterward.)

But in this case I never said Mixie was right.

You said I was wrong, which amounts to the same thing. Either P or ~P.
You cannot have it both ways.

The rest of your post has been deleted largely unread, since it seems you
need this lesson in elementary logic (namely, the Law of the Excluded
Middle) to osmose for a bit before you'll be capable of discussing the
issue rationally.

Have a nice day.

I will respond in-line to one or two bits that caught my eye skimming the
rest of your unpleasant and logic-deficient diatribe, though.

It seems you're a fair-weather ally.

Ally? You seem to think it's a war.

It became one as soon as Mxsmanic, Dudley, you, and Jim Logajan began
making public insinuations about my intelligence and competence. It will
end when people stop making such insinuations and either let the topic
drop entirely or capitulate, say by apologizing and publicly retracting
their insinuations about me.

I'm all for you telling Mixie or
Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong yourself.

I didn't and I won't, thanks.

That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but it
wasn't.

By attacking my attack on "Mixie" you are defending "Mixie". What part of
the Law of the Excluded Middle (or, for that matter, of "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend") don't you understand?

(Nothing after that point was worthy of a response. I counted a few bits
of namecalling directed at me and a repetition of something already
addressed, and zero evidence or reasoned arguments in support of
Mxsmanic's position ~P.)

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:07:24 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:30:45 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

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.

So, you're saying BOTH of us are wrong?

That's impossible by the Law of the Excluded Middle.

I say P and Mxsmanic says ~P, where P is:

"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."

I never disagreed with that. Perhaps you have me confused with
another poster?

Now, either P or ~P. Either I'm right or Mxsmanic is right. If you claim
that I'm wrong, then you claim that Mxsmanic is right, and I am being
quite fair in characterizing you as having taken his side in the dispute
over P vs. ~P.

(Actually, as near as I can tell the dispute is really over the implied
statement that her prior flight experience would have been an advantage.

The borader dispute is over that question. But your dispute with
me is not.

[...]

But in this case I never said Mixie was right.

You said I was wrong, which amounts to the same thing. Either P or ~P.
You cannot have it both ways.

You're still arguing something other than the point I was making
about your error, which really had nothing to do with the broader
question but rather your claim that"certificate" wqas a
misspelling, whihc it is not.

[...]

It seems you're a fair-weather ally.

Ally? You seem to think it's a war.

It became one as soon as Mxsmanic, Dudley, you, and Jim Logajan began
making public insinuations about my intelligence and competence.

the only "insuation" I made was that your were wrong in your
claim that "certificate" was a misspelling. A bold face
statement, not an insuation.

I will
end when people stop making such insinuations and either let the topic
drop entirely or capitulate, say by apologizing and publicly retracting
their insinuations about me.

I'm not insuatuing at all. You're was whiney complainer who
apparently misreads comments to that you can complain about
things that weren't said.

I'm all for you telling Mixie or
Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong yourself.

I didn't and I won't, thanks.

That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but it
wasn't.

By attacking my attack on "Mixie" you are defending "Mixie".

Interesting logic. In fact, I have no interest in being on
anyone's side.

hat part of
the Law of the Excluded Middle (or, for that matter, of "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend") don't you understand?

(Nothing after that point was worthy of a response. I counted a few bits
of namecalling directed at me and a repetition of something already
addressed, and zero evidence or reasoned arguments in support of
Mxsmanic's position ~P.)

I've already plonked Mixe so I don't have to read his misaimed
comments and attempts to change the subject when he doesn't like
a response. I see no reason not to do the same for your paranoid
tantrums.

*plonk*


I can't help wondering how old you are, though.

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

Hatunen wrote:
Wingnut wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
Wingnut wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
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.

So, you're saying BOTH of us are wrong?

That's impossible by the Law of the Excluded Middle.

I say P and Mxsmanic says ~P, where P is:

"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."

I never disagreed with that.

Yes, you did. That is the bone of contention, and furthermore it is my
position. You attacked me. Therefore, you disagree with that, whether you
admit it or not. There is, after all, no other plausible motive for you
to attack me, given that you do not know me personally.

Now, either P or ~P. Either I'm right or Mxsmanic is right. If you claim
that I'm wrong, then you claim that Mxsmanic is right, and I am being
quite fair in characterizing you as having taken his side in the dispute
over P vs. ~P.

(Actually, as near as I can tell the dispute is really over the implied
statement that her prior flight experience would have been an advantage.

The borader dispute is over that question. But your dispute with me is
not.

Yet it must be, for that is the bone of contention in this thread.

But in this case I never said Mixie was right.

You said I was wrong, which amounts to the same thing. Either P or ~P.
You cannot have it both ways.

You're still arguing

Well of *course* I'm still arguing, you keep publicly calling me names!
I'm hardly going to roll over and *agree* with you when you keep doing
*that*!

It seems you're a fair-weather ally.

Ally? You seem to think it's a war.

It became one as soon as Mxsmanic, Dudley, you, and Jim Logajan began
making public insinuations about my intelligence and competence.

the only "insuation" I made was that your were wrong

Which amounts to the same thing.

I notice you're just as spelling-challenged as Mxsmanic. Birds of a
feather?

I will
end when people stop making such insinuations and either let the topic
drop entirely or capitulate, say by apologizing and publicly retracting
their insinuations about me.

I'm not insuatuing at all. You're was whiney complainer

Ah, screw this. Reason and intelligent discourse clearly are wasted on
you.

Go **** yourself, Hatunen.

There, like that? Seems more your kind of discourse. :-)


That would be impressive if it were Mixie I were defending, but it
wasn't.

By attacking my attack on "Mixie" you are defending "Mixie".

Interesting logic. In fact, I have no interest in being on anyone's
side.

This statement is even less supported by the evidence; your repeated
arguments with Mxsmanic demonstrate otherwise.

Regardless, the fact is that someone who appears to fight for one side
and then suddenly shoots one of that side's other soldiers in the back
without apparent provocation is one of three things: a mole, a turncoat,
or a lunatic.

Take your pick.

What part of
the Law of the Excluded Middle (or, for that matter, of "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend") don't you understand?

(Nothing after that point was worthy of a response. I counted a few bits
of namecalling directed at me and a repetition of something already
addressed, and zero evidence or reasoned arguments in support of
Mxsmanic's position ~P.)

I've already plonked Mixe so I don't have to read his misaimed comments
and attempts to change the subject when he doesn't like a response. I
see no reason not to do the same for you

Go ahead. I think both of us would be the happier for it, whichever of
mole, turncoat, or lunatic you might be.

I can't help wondering how old you are, though.

Sixty-three, and you?

"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/

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:04:51 -0400, Ala wrote:

"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/

Cute. Why post this here though? Certainly you could have picked a more
violent flamewar to post it into. :-)

"Wingnut" wrote in message
...
http://www.rofl.name/lolcity/

Cute. Why post this here though? Certainly you could have picked a more
violent flamewar to post it into. :-)

Because it was a cute flamewar