Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by
trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
venture destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting
this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
ways to respond to a troll.

I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
discourse.
Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.

Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice in
wonerland.

Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
nurture them.
If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things to
do than entertain trolls! :-)

Matt


Apparently not!


Bertie

Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!

Matt Whiting wrote in news:X7WNi.222$2n4.16415
@news1.epix.net:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll
by
trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
venture destined to failure as in many cases the person
attempting
this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
worst
ways to respond to a troll.

I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
discourse.
Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most
likely
cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.

Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice
in
wonerland.

Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
nurture them.
If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things
to
do than entertain trolls! :-)

Matt


Apparently not!


Bertie

Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!


Took you long enough.


I'm a troll and a half. That means I'm three trolls for the price of
two! Or five for three, Sale ends this week. Supplies limited

Bertie

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture
destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control
on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.

Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
ways to respond to a troll.


I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless discourse.
Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.

For the record: ignoring is NOT surrender. Surrender is when you
don't even try to ignore the troll, and even worse pooh-pooh the
whole idea of killfiling the troll.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article , "Morgans"
wrote:

Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
ways to respond to a troll.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?

Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?

No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
killfiling a troll.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Matt Whiting wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:
Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by
trying to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless
venture destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting
this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
ways to respond to a troll.

I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
discourse. Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and
most likely
cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.

Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice in
wonerland.
Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
nurture them.
If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things to
do than entertain trolls! :-)

Matt


Apparently not!

Bertie

Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!

Bertie has his troll moments and he has his serious moments. I find
Bertie a regular guy who doesn't suffer fools very long.

No one knows exactly who he is or where he's from, but my experience
with him has been that he not only knows his way around a cockpit but
can be a friend to those who just leave him alone on the troll issue and
deal with him seriously on flying and aviation issues.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Matt Whiting wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:
Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll
by
trying to control how others deal with that troll is a
fruitless
venture destined to failure as in many cases the person
attempting
this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll
themselves.
Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
worst
ways to respond to a troll.

I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
discourse. Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most
and
most likely
cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.

Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice
in
wonerland.
Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
nurture them.
If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things
to
do than entertain trolls! :-)

Matt


Apparently not!

Bertie

Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!

Bertie has his troll moments and he has his serious moments. I find
Bertie a regular guy who doesn't suffer fools very long.

No one knows exactly who he is or where he's from, but my experience
with him has been that he not only knows his way around a cockpit but
can be a friend to those who just leave him alone on the troll issue
and
deal with him seriously on flying and aviation issues.


Pretty much the way it is. I have often posted ( and still do
occasionally) under a different 'nym for serious stuff, but have
admittedly gotten lazy about that lately.


Bertie

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , "Morgans"
wrote:

Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
ways to respond to a troll.
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

What constitutes surrender, in your opinion?

Are you saying ignoring a troll is to play into a troll's hands?

No. DH appears to be surrendering and pooh-poohing the idea of
killfiling a troll.


Not so at all. Please re-read the following line from my post on the issue;

Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to be
handled as individuals see fit.

Is there something about this comment you don't understand?

Trolls and just who is and isn't a troll are subject to individual
interpretation as such. Therefore it is simply my opinion that any
action taken to "handle" or "not handle" these people should simply be
left to the individual to decide.

If kill filing someone is your thing, by all means have at it.
Personally I find people who constantly gripe and **** and moan about
who's top posting, bottom posting, and insertion posting, and taking
people to task on this issue the perfect troll on any newsgroup!
DH


--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Matt Whiting wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:
Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll
by
trying to control how others deal with that troll is a
fruitless
venture destined to failure as in many cases the person
attempting
this control on the forum innocently becomes a troll
themselves.
Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the
worst
ways to respond to a troll.

I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless
discourse. Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most
and
most likely
cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.
Good grief. you guys are starting to read like a chapter in alice
in
wonerland.
Trolls are god's gift to us and I, for one, intend to cherish and
nurture them.
If I had no life, I would also. Fortunately, I have better things
to
do than entertain trolls! :-)

Matt

Apparently not!

Bertie
Well, I didn't realize you were a troll ... until just now!
Bertie has his troll moments and he has his serious moments. I find
Bertie a regular guy who doesn't suffer fools very long.

No one knows exactly who he is or where he's from, but my experience
with him has been that he not only knows his way around a cockpit but
can be a friend to those who just leave him alone on the troll issue
and
deal with him seriously on flying and aviation issues.


Pretty much the way it is. I have often posted ( and still do
occasionally) under a different 'nym for serious stuff, but have
admittedly gotten lazy about that lately.


Bertie


No sweat. Anyone with half a brain should be able to tell the difference
anyway :-))
D

--
Dudley Henriques

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture
destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control
on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
Surrender plays into the troll's hands and thus is one of the worst
ways to respond to a troll.

I disagree. The goal of a troll is to suck you in to useless discourse.
Ignoring them is what will frustrate them the most and most likely
cause them to get bored and troll elsewhere.

For the record: ignoring is NOT surrender. Surrender is when you
don't even try to ignore the troll, and even worse pooh-pooh the
whole idea of killfiling the troll.


Suggesting people ignore a troll (which is my well known stance on the
issue BTW) is NOT as you say "pooh-poohing" the whole idea of kill
filing a troll. It merely means that ignoring a troll is a more
PREFERRED METHOD of handling the situation as opposed to kill filing people.
If kill filing is your thing, be my guest! I certainly have no objection.
PLEASE....begin with me!

--
Dudley Henriques

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Hmm....do you think then that it is reasonable to expect a person with
Ph.D. in aviation science (that's what I read somewhere) to know what
causes lift on an airplane, without math?

1) Rod Machado does not appear to have a Ph.D. He claims many things and
if he had one I'm sure he would say so. He's not shy about his
accomplishments. Here is the bio on his web site:
http://www.rodmachado.com/Bio/Bio.html

2) If you want to predict the approximate lift, drag, torques, pressures,
temperatures, and such on an airplane then one requires math. Math is
required to do anything usefully predictive. Since all physics models,
whether mathematical or intuitive, are merely approximations of physical
reality, they all (to different extents) produce "wrong" results. But I'm
not like you and would say they produce progressively less useful
results. For the purposes of piloting I see no value in a precise
explanation of lift - it's right up there with knowing Maxwell's
equations or field effect transister theory before one can be allowed to
use a radio.

In this case, it is outright wrong. I have the book here with me. I
can retype the entire section, the copy and paste from the NASA link
that you gave earlier, and it will be plainly obvious that two
descriptions are polar opposites.

I don't think that would accomplish anything useful.

Find the contact information for the authors of the book and send them
the NASA link and politely point out that their text appears to
contradict the NASA explanation and ask them if they could either
reconcile the two explanations or if they could consider updating any
future edition to address the issue.

Also, since you are the one who posted the NASA link, I have two
questions:

1. Do you understand thoroughly NASA's explanation why they think the
other authors are wrong?

First, their articles are hardly comprehensive on all the ways the
explanations for lift can be wrong. That said, they pointed out that
empirical evidence disputes the "equal time" theory and computations
using the "stone skipping" theory don't match observations either. I've
been aware of the limitations of those explanations years before I
located those NASA pages.

2. Do you agree with them?

You mean with NASA? Well, I agree with the content of those two web pages
at least. Actually a lot of the material in that series of pages is
nicely done.