"I'll spend as much of YOUR money as I want!" - Bu$h's Sunday Presidential Address

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:50:50 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"B2431" wrote in message
...

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Tarver Engineering"

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Have you anything nice to say about anyone?

Your persistant attacks are signs of a weak mind.

Pot kettle

Tarver, name ONE person in RAM I ever attacked.

Do you know what a pitot tube is now, Dan? It is a certainty that you
have
attacked me, out of your own ignorance.

Tarver, go do a google on YOUR definition of a pitot tube

I use Henri Pitot's definition of a pitot tube.

You are an idiot, Dan.

No, Mr Tarver, Dan is correct. You posted that an entire squadron on
jets were lost when they encountered fog and were not equipped with
p1t0 tubes. You stated that p1t0 tubes were introduced only after jets
became the norm.

Right, there is no t0 in a pitot tube for gasoline airplanes.

It is good to see Minyard make a fool of himself too.

"B2431" wrote in message
...

From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 9/8/2003 7:02 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


snip

The discussion you archive trolled here has to do with jets, where the
static side of the pitot tube requires a temperature probe. From the
engine, the static datum are p1t0.

How much more of an idiot do you really want to be, Dan?

Tarver, once again you have resorted to name calling which simply proves
my
point that you would do that rather than answer my request that you name
ONCE
that I ever stooped to personal attacks as you said I had.

Dan, the facts make you an idiot, not my words.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"B2431" wrote in message
...

From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 9/8/2003 7:02 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


snip

The discussion you archive trolled here has to do with jets, where the
static side of the pitot tube requires a temperature probe. From the
engine, the static datum are p1t0.

How much more of an idiot do you really want to be, Dan?

Tarver, once again you have resorted to name calling which simply proves
my
point that you would do that rather than answer my request that you name
ONCE
that I ever stooped to personal attacks as you said I had.

Dan, the facts make you an idiot, not my words.


Hey Splaps,
I tried my best to drag you into a short thread over in a.a.s.
The discussion was over 5th Pod on a 747. That's where they transport
a spare engine around by temporarily hanging it on the left wing just
inboard
of engine #2.
While the 5th Pod is installed, a specially calibrated Mach Airspeed Warn
Sw.
is substituted for the standard switch on the top ctr. shelf of the MEC. The
pitot
line from the switch is connected to the lower right Pitot Probe. Any idea
which
probe(s) the static line for the switch connects to. hint: it ain't screened
over. :-)

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"B2431" wrote in message
...

From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 9/8/2003 7:02 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


snip

The discussion you archive trolled here has to do with jets, where
the
static side of the pitot tube requires a temperature probe. From the
engine, the static datum are p1t0.

How much more of an idiot do you really want to be, Dan?

Tarver, once again you have resorted to name calling which simply
proves
my
point that you would do that rather than answer my request that you
name
ONCE
that I ever stooped to personal attacks as you said I had.

Dan, the facts make you an idiot, not my words.


Hey Splaps,

Hey village idiot.

I tried my best to drag you into a short thread over in a.a.s.

You are na archive troll, Knoyle and not really smart enough for me to care.

Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)

From: "Tarver Engineering"

snip

Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)


Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than answer a
simple question.

You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you personally
or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh well.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

From: "Tarver Engineering"


snip

Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)



Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than answer a
simple question.

You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you personally
or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh well.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dan, Dan, Dan, just killfile the idiot like so many of us have. The only
posts of his I see are the ones replied to and I always read your stuff.
So there!

George

"B2431" wrote in message
...

From: "Tarver Engineering"

snip

Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)

Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than answer a
simple question.

No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive troll.
There is noting professional, or friendly, about what you are doing. You
deserve to be flamed off the board, but I have been very patient with you.
If you feel that you are not stupid, then why do you continue to act in a
stupid manner? I can not see how you can expect me to treat you with any
respect at all.

You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you
personally
or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh well.

The archive troll is a personal attack and has been an economic attack on my
business for some years. If I thought Knoyle had a pot to **** in I would
take it away, but he has the protection of nothin to lose. Unlike our
ex-NASA participants, who paid dearly for Dudley's ignorance.

"George Shirley" wrote in message
...
B2431 wrote:

snip
Dan, Dan, Dan, just killfile the idiot like so many of us have. The only
posts of his I see are the ones replied to and I always read your stuff.
So there!

If dan wants to demonstrate that he has no clue how aircraft systems work,
then let him.


Who cares George?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"B2431" wrote in message
...

From: "Tarver Engineering"

snip

Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me and
wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)

Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than answer
a
simple question.

No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive troll.
There is noting professional, or friendly, about what you are doing. You
deserve to be flamed off the board, but I have been very patient with you.
If you feel that you are not stupid, then why do you continue to act in a
stupid manner? I can not see how you can expect me to treat you with any
respect at all.

You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you
personally
or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh
well.

The archive troll is a personal attack and has been an economic attack on
my
business for some years. If I thought Knoyle had a pot to **** in I would
take it away, but he has the protection of nothin to lose. Unlike our
ex-NASA participants, who paid dearly for Dudley's ignorance.



Somewhere I read:
"To argue against an easily verifiable fact for a few months is stupid.
To argue against an easily verifiable fact for three years is insanity."

Oh, yea, that was at:
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html

One point in dispute (among many) is your claim:
Boeing 727 do not use Pitot Tubes because they are too convenient a home for
mud wasps.
....and then you added some nonsense about using a 'screened over pitot port
instead.'

My claim: A 727 has 3 pitot tubes up on the nose and 2 on the vert. stab.

What do YOU call those pointy things on the nose of every commercial
aircraft?
Why does a 727 have three while a 737 has FOUR. (plus 2 pitot tubes on the
vert. stab.)
Why do the several folks who've tried to explain it to you end up on your
growing idiot list?

One of us is correct while the other is an idiot (or insane).

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"B2431" wrote in message
...

From: "Tarver Engineering"

snip

Dan, on the other hand, is a asshole running an archive troll on me
and
wanting me to be nice to him. (ie stupid)

Once again you resort to vulgar and personal attacks rather than
answer
a
simple question.

No Dan, Knoyle is an insulting ass and you are quoting his archive
troll.
There is noting professional, or friendly, about what you are doing.
You
deserve to be flamed off the board, but I have been very patient with
you.
If you feel that you are not stupid, then why do you continue to act in
a
stupid manner? I can not see how you can expect me to treat you with
any
respect at all.

You still haven't given us an example of a tome when I attacked you
personally
or otherwise. I really don't think you will ever respond civilly. Oh
well.

The archive troll is a personal attack and has been an economic attack
on
my
business for some years. If I thought Knoyle had a pot to **** in I
would
take it away, but he has the protection of nothin to lose. Unlike our
ex-NASA participants, who paid dearly for Dudley's ignorance.



Somewhere I read:
"To argue against an easily verifiable fact for a few months is stupid.
To argue against an easily verifiable fact for three years is insanity."

Knoyle, I already know you are a mental case.

All anyone has to do is compare Henri Pitot's invention to our discussion,
to know you are an idiot, jimmy. The archive troll raises you to village
idiot, but I suppose it does keep you from eating the piece.