If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
"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 |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:52:03 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
Wingnut writes: True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been obvious, indeed blindingly so. Disagreement is not animosity. It is when one side starts telling the world that the other side is an idiot, or worse. Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly just to nettle you? If I read your posts at all, I generally scan them quickly. Well, there's your mistake then, right there! For each post, you should either read it thoroughly, for comprehension, or else not post a followup to it. Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup with a lot of posts on the topic, though. I just click on the reply button. Indiscriminately, it seems. Perhaps a Tourette's tic in your right index finger? I think they have medication for that these days. You might want to ask your doctor about treatment options. Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance? No, not really. Certainly not with you. Then this conversation serves no further purpose. Then I shouldn't expect to see any further posts by you. (Yet, strangely, I find I *do* expect to see some. I wonder why?) |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
Wingnut wrote: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance? No, not really. Certainly not with you. I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!! Speak for yourself (and Mxsmanic). I'm about as sane as they come. |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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? |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Wingnut wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: Wingnut wrote: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance? No, not really. Certainly not with you. I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!! Speak for yourself (and Mxsmanic). I'm about as sane as they come. And you know this because of your extensive background in mental health? |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Wingnut wrote:
I'm about as sane as they come. The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my. Anyway, I'm the standard for sanity. Self-certified from the most authoritative authority I know. |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote: Wingnut wrote: I'm about as sane as they come. The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my. There ain't no sanity clause. (With thanx to Chico.) -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
In article ,
peachyashiepassion wrote: Wingnut wrote: On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:36 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: Wingnut wrote: On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote: Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance? No, not really. Certainly not with you. I HOPE YOU PEOPLE DON'T FLY *REAL* AIRPLANES, CAUSE YOU'RE ALL NUTZZ!!! Speak for yourself (and Mxsmanic). I'm about as sane as they come. And you know this because of your extensive background in mental health? No. -- TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com TS100 Sto http://www.CafePress.com/TS100 TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote: Wingnut wrote: I'm about as sane as they come. The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my. There ain't no sanity clause. Nonetheless, I'm about as sane as they come. |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Wingnut wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:58 -0700, Hatunen wrote: On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:04:46 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote: Wingnut wrote: I'm about as sane as they come. The Wingnut sanity clause. Oh my. There ain't no sanity clause. Nonetheless, I'm about as sane as they come. And one flew over the cuckoo's nest. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot nearly crashes in IMC, Controller helps | pimenthal | Piloting | 32 | September 27th 05 01:06 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Toronto Plane Pilot Was Allowed To Land In "Red Alert" Weather | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 24 | August 19th 05 10:48 PM |
2 pilot/small airplane CRM | Mitty | Instrument Flight Rules | 35 | September 1st 04 11:19 PM |
non-pilot lands airplane | Cub Driver | Piloting | 3 | August 14th 04 12:08 AM |
Home Builders are Sick Sick Puppies | pacplyer | Home Built | 11 | March 26th 04 12:39 AM |