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 |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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?) |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote:
"Wingnut" wrote in message ... 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. 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. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you must be incompetent or a liar or must have recently suffered a head injury or something. No, I'm saying that someone who just suddenly CHANGES sides like that is PROBABLY either suffering something or has been suborned. From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one another for years. Then I come along and, innocently, say: "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." This shouldn't even have been controversial but apparently Mxsmanic saw it and has a bee in his bonnet about such things, so he posts attacking me. And Hatunen follows him and starts posting attacking Mxsmanic. For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I wrote, so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying to frame me as some kind of moron or incompetent. All the while just making himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars, and being flamed by Hatunen and several other people he's apparently made enemies of over the years. Until last week, when all of a sudden Hatunen starts flaming me instead, apparently having gone over to Mxsmanic's side. You aren't enemies with someone for years and then suddenly take their side one day without some kind of precipitating incident. Head injury, payoff, something. Considering also that Mxsmanic is simply wrong, it's not like Hatunen just had an epiphany and saw the light or something. That kind of thing only goes in the opposite direction. If you say you're sure he hasn't been suborned, then I'd like to know what you think DID convince Hatunen to abruptly switch sides in this little dispute. Usenet exists for the exchange of views and this thread has been boringly tame so far. Not even (to use an English expression) "handbags at 4 paces". And I can never ever recollect Hatunen being a detractor of anyone. Until now. He's just called me several nasty names in a couple of recent posts. He disagrees with Mxsmanic frequently, as do many of us, or rather, he used to, but that is just a simple exchange of views and I have never ever noticed a trace of personal animosity to anyone in any of his many postings over the years. Again, until now. Personal animosity against me is dripping from his posts of June 29 and July 1 -- condescension, lecturing at me like I'm some wayward little child, the whole works. Standard-issue Usenet flaming of the first kind: portray your opponent as an imbecile in need of special hand-holding in order to discredit whatever he's been saying. (The second kind would be to suggest, somewhat slyly, sexual peccadilloes or outright perversion on your opponent's part; the third is simply to come right out and blast him or her with torrents of vulgar profanity, namecalling, accusations, and other unsubtle invective. All three amount to logically-invalid ad hominem arguments of course.) The key thing is that in flaming me in any of those ways he shows that he now considers me to BE his opponent, rather than an ally against Mxsmanic. His having switched sides is thus apparent; by the logic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and the evident fact that he now regards me as an enemy, plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy, one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the only remaining question is why. The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could. If Mxsmanic has discovered some strong means of influencing others all of a sudden, it's conceivable that he might suborn all of us into supporting his craziness. Knowing the mechanism would allow this hazard to be better quantified. For instance, if it's simple blackmail I'm immune, lacking any dirt in my past for him to dig up, but he could turn the rest of the people here to his side and then have them all gang up and hound me mercilessly about Usenet with vicious flaming, effectively neutralizing me by discrediting me under this name. (I'd just start using a new one, but presumably if I touched this topic again history would repeat itself, with my words and a Google search by Mxsmanic bringing the whole lot of 'em down on my head like a bag of hammers.) On the other hand, if he has some kind of zombie slave potion he's feeding people, I'd have to meet him in person under circumstances that enabled him to slip me a mickey to be vulnerable, and it's likely only a handful of people here are actually at risk of being suborned. If he has some sort of bogus "proof" of his nonsense sufficient to fool imbeciles, it won't work on me. If it's a mind control ray, I'm in trouble -- I left my tinfoil hat behind the last time I moved house. :-) |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
Wingnut writes:
From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one another for years. As hard as it may be to believe, some people are neither for nor against each other. For whatever reason Mxsmanic is really, really incensed by what I wrote, so much so that he's very persistent, nigh-relentless, in trying to frame me as some kind of moron or incompetent. I don't even remember what you wrote, so it can hardly leave me incensed. All the while just making himself look like a know-nothing self-styled know-it-all in front of a brand new audience of rec.arts.tv regulars ... Even if that were true, I'm not sure why I should care what anyone on rec.arts.tv thinks about aviation. But it does make me smile (which is rare these days, as I have little to smile about). ... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ... OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R) ... one concludes that Mxsmanic and Hatunen have become allied; the only remaining question is why. The Trilateral Illuminati Freemasons Commission insisted--it was an essential step in their quest for world domination and mind-control. We are but pawns in the Grand Plan. I know the location of the keystone, and I have tickets for the Rose Line. The danger represented here is obvious: if one person could suddenly switch to Mxsmanic's side, presumably others could. And civilization--as we know it--would crumble into dust. Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance? |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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 * |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote: On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:50:32 +0100, JohnT wrote: "Wingnut" wrote in message ... 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. 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. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you must be incompetent or a liar or must have recently suffered a head injury or something. No, I'm saying that someone who just suddenly CHANGES sides like that is PROBABLY either suffering something or has been suborned. From the looks of things, Hatunen and Mxsmanic have been against one another for years. Then I come along and, innocently, say: "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." Again, as I note in another post rsponding to this assertion, that wasn't the quote in question. [Lines and lines of diatribe deleted. My, you do carry on.] -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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 * |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
On Jul 5, 7:26*am, 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 Okay folks it's about time those cockpit management skills were brought into action and the old saw of front seat cooperation came to mean something.. Time to take a breath, say bugger or whatever and keep posting aviation stuff... |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
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. |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
"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/ |
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 |