Paul Tomblin

DABEAR wrote:
Paul Tomblin wrote:

If it's so damn safe, fly it and show us what it and you are made of.

Outside...Inside...Outside In...Inside
Out...Assembled...Disassembled...machst nichts.

Or, he might surprise us all...

I can see him in black fedora, black cape and green facepaint, flying
high above Oshkosh, the Emerald City of Aviation, skywriting with black
smoke pouring from the tail:

"Surrender RAH-14!"

Then, in an ironic act mimmicking what we all currently think about the
chances of his actually flying the "Butterball Bullet," Flying Monkeys
will come out of his butt, making the cockpit even more cramped and
worse...one will be trying to take over the controls from the Yawnster
Monster.

All will have the face of Juan, except the one desiring the controls,
and that one will look like Captain Zoom...who will have no Gods before
him.

Just Butt Monkeys like Juan.


Place your bets, will the yawn dart ever fly?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In a previous article, Dan said:
Place your bets, will the yawn dart ever fly?

And will it ever sell?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
We don't need a fountain of youth. We need a fountain of smart.
-- Bill Mattocks's .sig

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, Dan said:
Place your bets, will the yawn dart ever fly?

And will it ever sell?


Maybe he can work a deal with Moller and do a two for one deal on E-Bay.

Dan wrote:

Place your bets, will the yawn dart ever fly?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The odds are against it; Twenty to Juan.

- John Ousterhout -

John Ousterhout wrote:
Dan wrote:

Place your bets, will the yawn dart ever fly?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The odds are against it; Twenty to Juan.

- John Ousterhout -



Juana bet?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

John Ousterhout wrote:
Dan wrote:

Place your bets, will the yawn dart ever fly?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The odds are against it; Twenty to Juan.

- John Ousterhout -

Now wait just a minute here!

Does "straight down" count!? 'Cause if it does, I'll throw some money
into the smoking hole, er..."kitty!"

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Juan Jimenez" said:
Paul, If you have a beef with me and you feel strongly enough about it to
post on Wikipedia, you should, at the very least, make sure you have a
something approaching a clue when it comes to the subject on which you are
commenting. Not following this simple guideline can make you look very
foolish in front of a very big audience.

So are you saying that I was wrong when I said it hasn't flown yet?

I assume you can read as well as write, right? Go look at my response to
your wikipedia comment. Speaks for itself.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In a previous article, "Juan Jimenez" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
So are you saying that I was wrong when I said it hasn't flown yet?

I assume you can read as well as write, right? Go look at my response to
your wikipedia comment. Speaks for itself.

I did. You said I should "limit your comments to subject in which you
have at least an inkling of knowledge". But the fact remains that every
single thing I said in my post was 100% factual.

So yeah, it speaks for itself. It's a prime example of how you attack the
messenger when you can't find fault in the message.

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
"Whoah, whoah! A fat sarcastic Star Trek fan? You must be a devil with the
ladies!" - Simpsons

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Juan Jimenez" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
So are you saying that I was wrong when I said it hasn't flown yet?

I assume you can read as well as write, right? Go look at my response to
your wikipedia comment. Speaks for itself.

I did. You said I should "limit your comments to subject in which you
have at least an inkling of knowledge".

Exactly.

But the fact remains that every single thing I said in my post was 100%
factual.

About as factual as the rumblings of dip**** couch potato armchair
quarterbacks. You don't know squat about BD-5's, squat about BD-5J's and
certainly squat about my aircraft, seeing as you have never even bothered to
asked me. What you posted are not facts, they are opinions, which like
assholes, usually stink. You want to be shown up as a fool on wikipedia, go
right ahead! You go, boi. Just remember that audience is orders of magnitude
larger than this one.

So yeah, it speaks for itself. It's a prime example of how you attack the
messenger when you can't find fault in the message.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Bring more quarters the next time.

Next!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Juan Jimenez" wrote:

"Paul Tomblin" wrote
In a previous article, "Juan Jimenez" said:
"Paul Tomblin" wrote

I did. You said I should "limit your comments to subject in which you
have at least an inkling of knowledge".

Exactly.

But the fact remains that every single thing I said in my post was 100%
factual.

About as factual as the rumblings of dip**** couch potato armchair
quarterbacks. You don't know squat about BD-5's, squat about BD-5J's and
certainly squat about my aircraft, seeing as you have never even bothered to
asked me. What you posted are not facts, they are opinions, which like
assholes, usually stink. You want to be shown up as a fool on wikipedia, go
right ahead! You go, boi. Just remember that audience is orders of magnitude
larger than this one.

So yeah, it speaks for itself. It's a prime example of how you attack the
messenger when you can't find fault in the message.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Bring more quarters the next time.

Funny how Juan actually goes out of his way to prove your premise.

He counters facts with nothing more than blathering and insults. On
the (very) rare occasion when he can actually refute another post
(such as details on his airworthiness certificate), he lists plenty of
information.

So it's really trivial to determine when a r.a.h. post about Zoom
and/or Juan is irrefutable. If the reply contains nothing but
insults, obscenity and flippant comments, the original post can be
admitted as certified gospel.

In essence, Juan is a truth detector with the bulbs wired backward.

And the sad thing is, he honestly believes that he's defending himself
and his reputation with nonsense like he types above. Or maybe it's
just ironic, I dunno... hard to apply the term "sad" to someone who's
doing it to himself on purpose.

Mark "facts is facts" Hickey