Post-accident photos of RV/TBM Avenger Oshkosh taxi collision

Montblack wrote:
("Big John" wrote)

Go to: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X01093&key=2
and see what NTSB says about accident (no pictures).

Witness reports, analysis of tape taken of aircraft taxing on taxiway
etc.



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060804X01093&key=2

NTSB Identification: CHI06FA206B
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, July 30, 2006 in Oshkosh, WI
Aircraft: Vans Aircraft RV-6, registration: C-FNQP
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

"2 Uninjured" ???????????


Montblack

Early reports can be all over the place. Fist report
was that there was only the pilot in the RV-6, next I heard the
RV-6 passenger was killed and the pilot was severally injured.
Reports now say that the RV-6 pilot was not injured so who knows
for sure at this point. I cannot believe that the RV-6 pilot was
not injured at all. Of course the TBM pilot and his wife were
not injured. I feel bad for them also as that would be a awful
thing to have to deal with.

Jerry

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:03:45 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Jerry Springer said:

Morgans wrote:

They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.

Just checked and they are still there on the
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.


There is no such thing as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site". Each
individual news server carries or doesn't carry usenet newsgroups for as
long as they want, so while they may still be on the server you're looking
at, they may have already expired from the server "Morgans" is looking at.

The news servers I run don't carry alt.binaries at all, because the
terabytes of data involved are too expensive for the non-profits I do it
for.

No kidding, I do believe that everyone understands that and knows what
we were talking about.


Actually what you stated is a common misconception. I honestly
thought you didn't understand how usenet worked. This is not a dig,
rather an observation due to the terminology used. I thought Paul did
a good job of explaining the architecture of NNTP.

z

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:29:33 GMT, Jerry springer
wrote:

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Jerry Springer said:

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, Jerry Springer said:

Morgans wrote:

They have been removed from my server, or from the binaries site, now.

Just checked and they are still there on the
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site.

There is no such thing as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation site". Each
individual news server carries or doesn't carry usenet newsgroups for as
long as they want, so while they may still be on the server you're looking
at, they may have already expired from the server "Morgans" is looking at.


No kidding, I do believe that everyone understands that and knows what
we were talking about.


If "everyone" understands that, what possible reason could you have for
telling Morgans that they're still on your server when you don't even tell
him which server you're talking about? How does that help him? And why
would you refer to your server as "the alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
site"?


Just to make you feel like a big shot and come on here and tell us
something that everyone that has been on the internet for over a day and
uses usenet already understands, Morgan had already mentioned that
they were not on his server or he might have missed the title to them.

The internet has nothing to do with usenet. The internet uses the
HTTP protocol. Usenet uses the NNTP protocol. Both exist without the
need for the other. NNTP is actually older than "the internet."

HTH.
z

"zatatime" wrote

The internet has nothing to do with usenet. The internet uses the
HTTP protocol. Usenet uses the NNTP protocol. Both exist without the
need for the other. NNTP is actually older than "the internet."
******************************************

You'all have gotten on my last nerve, now.

You all have to remember that most people do not give a rat's A** how or why
it all works. Stop trying to show each other how big your d**ks are, and
get that through your thick heads.

And if usenet has nothing to do with Internet, why do you read it through
services provided by your ISP's?

Really, get a life! Don't try to impress everyone with a bunch of technical
names. General names are plenty for most people to try to comprehend.
--
Jim in NC

zatatime writes:
The internet has nothing to do with usenet. The internet uses the
HTTP protocol. Usenet uses the NNTP protocol. Both exist without the
need for the other. NNTP is actually older than "the internet."

May I suggest that you go read a bit about the history of the arpanet,
internet, usenet, and the world wide web?

This should be a good starting point:

http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/

Chris

("Morgans" wrote)
Stop trying to show each other how big your d**ks are, and get that
through your thick heads.


Very old punchline:
"Only 4 1/2 inches --- thick."


Montblack

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 21:05:37 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

You'all have gotten on my last nerve, now.

You all have to remember that most people do not give a rat's A** how or why
it all works. Stop trying to show each other how big your d**ks are, and
get that through your thick heads.

I wasn't trying to show anyone how big my dick is. I'd say those with
the thick heads are the ones that don't care to understand technology
they use to some degree. It's a shame that posts applicable to these
forums get your last nerve.

And if usenet has nothing to do with Internet, why do you read it through
services provided by your ISP's?
I don't.


Really, get a life! Don't try to impress everyone with a bunch of technical
names. General names are plenty for most people to try to comprehend.
So then should we just call everything that goes in the air a flight
thingy? That should be good for most people.
z

In article ,
zatatime wrote:

I wasn't trying to show anyone how big my dick is. I'd say those with
the thick heads are the ones that don't care to understand technology
they use to some degree. It's a shame that posts applicable to these
forums get your last nerve.

Ahhh! Therein lies the difference!
Many computer users don't care how it works, they only want it to work
correctly when they use it.
It's a machine, nothing more.
You turn it on, it works the way you want it to.
If it doesn't, you find someone to fix it so it does work the way you
want it to.
They don't care how!
They don't care why!
Its not important!
Just make it work!
Period!

"john smith" wrote

Ahhh! Therein lies the difference!
Many computer users don't care how it works, they only want it to work
correctly when they use it.
It's a machine, nothing more.
You turn it on, it works the way you want it to.
If it doesn't, you find someone to fix it so it does work the way you
want it to.
They don't care how!
They don't care why!
Its not important!
Just make it work!
Period!

There you go! I didn't think that was so hard to understand.

I also wonder how many people DO NOT get their newsgroups through services
provided by their ISP's?

No counting the ones who read them at work.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"john smith" wrote

Ahhh! Therein lies the difference!
Many computer users don't care how it works, they only want it to work
correctly when they use it.
It's a machine, nothing more.
You turn it on, it works the way you want it to.
If it doesn't, you find someone to fix it so it does work the way you
want it to.
They don't care how!
They don't care why!
Its not important!
Just make it work!
Period!

That's the way most women feel about cars. I don't think they should be
allowed to drive!