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

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?)

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 *

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

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.

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.