Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

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.

The funny thing is it's clear from his retinue of loyal detractors that
he's a notorious troll, but what's less clear is where from. I'm pretty
familiar with the rec.arts.tv rogue's gallery by now ("trotsky",
"Ubiquitous", "Sound of Trumpet", and several nymshifting trolls
including "the homophobe", "the Obamaphobe", and the infamous Seamus
MacRae) and "Mxsmanic" isn't one of them. I'm guessing that like "Lady
Veteran" and "womanGoddess" before him he's a troll principally of other
groups that has decided to add to rec.arts.tv's sources of woe
temporarily for reasons probably beyond the ability of any sane mind to
fathom.

Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
my side,

No one is against you. No one is for you, either.

suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best
and a liar at worst.

Provide a message ID reference and quote the sentence where he used the
word "incompetent" in reference to you.

Of course he didn't. Which is unfortunate, since you really are either
incompetent or a troll. And you can quote me on that.

I've never understood why anonymous posters seem to get their knickers in
an uproar - probably nobody knows who you really and I personally don't
care. If you've made your precious handle look bad, just start using a
bloody new one and start fresh. Stop vommiting your ego insecurities all
over Usenet. You screwed up - BFD. You'll live. Move on.

I know this has a large probability of being a pointless exercise, but I'll
try it anyway:

When you make assertions and one or more turn out to be wrong and make you
look stupid - remember you are in a lot of good company (i.e. you're
human.) So try showing some maturity and own up to the mistake as
succinctly and graciously as possible. If you can't manage that (it is
monumentally tough and I know real character when I see a genuine mea
culpa,) then try starting fresh like I suggested in my harsh response
above. And take the mistake as a learning point: specifically, that you
should always research before you post, and if you can't, put plenty of
qualifiers in your future assertions.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:34 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 30, 10:35Â*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:59Â*am, Wingnut wrote:

Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked
attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke
these relentless and unpleasant criticisms.

Dudley Henriques wrote;

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as
anyone here. Â*:-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit
puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these
"relentless and unpleasant criticisms".

Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I
was a liar, whether you intended to or not.

I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all the
years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
inferring that someone was a liar.

It was in your post of June 28, at 11:13 am. It was a response to one of
my posts countering one of Mxsmanic's, and it implied (though it didn't
state outright) that I was lying on the topic of how much experience was
implied by a commercial license.

I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted
dishonestly here.

On Jun 30, 11:37*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:34 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 30, 10:35*pm, Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:25:12 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jun 29, 5:59*am, Wingnut wrote:

Suffice it to say that I am growing weary of these unprovoked
attacks from Mxsmanic and Dudley Henriques. I did nothing to provoke
these relentless and unpleasant criticisms.

Dudley Henriques wrote;

I have no opinion of you at all really. You simply come with Usenet.
No problem at all. You have as much right to an opinion here as
anyone here. *:-))))))))
Dudley Henriques

Interesting logic trail you have going here. I admit I'm a bit
puzzled to discover exactly where you are finding all these
"relentless and unpleasant criticisms".

Mainly in Mxsmanic's posts, but you did at least once suggest that I
was a liar, whether you intended to or not.

I'd like to see that quote when you get a moment to find it. In all the
years I've been here on this forum I can't recall ever calling or
inferring that someone was a liar.

It was in your post of June 28, at 11:13 am. It was a response to one of
my posts countering one of Mxsmanic's, and it implied (though it didn't
state outright) that I was lying on the topic of how much experience was
implied by a commercial license.

I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted
dishonestly here.

If you have the time of the post and the date of the post, please POST
the post so it can be properly referenced in relation to your charge?
Thank you
Dudley Henriques

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:27:06 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

Wingnut wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:30:32 -0700, Hatunen, who had formerly been on
my side,

No one is against you.

On the contrary. I made what should have been a plain, uncontroversial
statement and was attacked by Mxsmanic. I responded in my own defense and
was promptly attacked again. Every subsequent time I've responded in my
own defense, I've been attacked yet again, usually by Mxsmanic but
sometimes by Dudley Henriques and now, suddenly, by Hatunen and yourself.
I hadn't even seen you in this thread before. It doesn't therefore seem
to me that you even have a dog in this race, so what prompted your sudden
participation?

suddenly launched an attack and called me incompetent at best and a
liar at worst.

Provide a message ID reference and quote the sentence where he used the
word "incompetent" in reference to you.

He didn't actually use the word "incompetent". Rather, he was subtle
enough to insinuate these things without stating them outright.

Of course he didn't. Which is unfortunate, since you really are either
incompetent or a troll. And you can quote me on that.

**** you too, and the modem you dialed in on.

It looks like my attackers are becoming more overt and vocal in their
attacks. But why? I did nothing to provoke them. All I did, and I repeat,
was 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."

Why should this be a "crime" for which I get "sentenced" to perpetual
flaming by you and your buddies?

Oh, yeah -- it shouldn't. The only reason why this is happening is
because you and Mxsmanic are assholes and trolls. And you can quote me on
that.

I've never understood why anonymous posters seem to get their knickers
in an uproar - probably nobody knows who you really and I personally
don't care. If you've made your precious handle look bad

But that's just it -- I haven't. A small number of people are acting
hostile, apparently because yonder troll Mxsmanic has a few more admirers
than originally suspected. I haven't done anything wrong. What I did was
call Mxsmanic on some misbehavior of his, and now his tiny little handful
of friends are leaping to his defense. And poorly; rather than trying to
defend or excuse his actions, they're simply attacking his detractors.
Really, do you honestly believe very many people will be swayed to
Msxmanic's side by such an obviously bogus ad hominem argument as
"Wingnut is an incompetent troll"? Most people are smarter than that. And
the other two are Mxsmanic and yourself. :-)

You screwed up - BFD.

No. I did NOT screw up. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with

"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."

and more people agree with me than disagree with me. So far dozens of
people have criticized Mxsmanic's position, and their criticisms have
consisted largely of reasoned arguments. Meanwhile, how many people have
criticized mine? Four, and their criticisms have consisted of such
brilliantly logical arguments as "Wingnut is an incompetent troll".

I think it's pretty clear which side is right and which is wrong, both on
the evidence and if you regard it as a popularity contest.

Which is what makes it odd that you would jump in at this late date and
on the obviously losing side of the debate. Just a sucker for underdogs,
perhaps, even when said underdogs are underdogs for the very good reason
that they lack merit?

Still, it's like you're a Leafs fan that suddenly walks into a Penguins
bar wearing a Leafs jersey and says, loudly, "The Penguins suck and the
Leafs rule!"

Where I come from that's described aptly with the phrase "cruising for a
bruising".

I know this has a large probability of being a pointless exercise, but
I'll try it anyway:

(Jim Logajan goes on to spew a large number of similar ad hominem
arguments, most of them boiling down to "Wingnut is stupid, therefore
Mxsmanic's position is the one you should believe". When stated in such
terms, however, it's obviously an invalid syllogism.)

a genuine mea culpa

I have nothing to apologize for. I stand by my position and against
Mxsmanic's and certainly your ad hominem arguments and unpleasant,
insulting bluster will never convince me to change my mind. Only reason
and logic will.

In fact, responding not only with invalid arguments but with increasingly
shrill tones, hostility, verbal violence, and the threat of escalated
verbal violence will do a lot to convince me that my original position is
the correct one for me to take, both because if you were really on the
side of truth and right you would not need to resort to such methods to
try to convert me and because I believe it is not proper to reward such
transparently coercive tactics by permitting them to succeed.

If by sticking to my original position I make your coercive tactics fail,
then I have done the world a great service, for every increment less
effective such tactics are corresponds to an incremental reduction in the
incentive of bullies like you to try to exploit such tactics against
others.

And so I repeat again the statement that has surprisingly provoked such a
lot of vitriol from a small number of highly vocal nutcases:

"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."

P.S. your dishonest attempt to suppress my response from appearing in
most of the newsgroups you attacked me in, to wit, your silent followup-
to, has been neutralized. Methinks maybe you made the mistake of
believing your own propaganda and, thus, the fatal error of thinking I'm
*actually* an incompetent troll, when in fact nothing could be further
from the truth.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:55:13 -0700, Dudley Henriques wrote:

On Jun 30, 11:37Â*pm, Wingnut wrote:
I repeat for the record that at no time have I lied or otherwise acted
dishonestly here.

If you have the time of the post and the date of the post, please POST
the post so it can be properly referenced in relation to your charge?

I'm sorry, but I don't feel that YOUR charge against me deserves further
airtime. Repost it yourself if you feel the need but I have no intention
of doing your own dirty work for you. Sorry.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:38:12 +0000, ClassCastException wrote something.

I don't know what happened here. I normally use that name in another
newsgroup, and Wingnut in this one. Some kind of malfunction with my news
server I guess.

"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. 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.
He disagrees with Mxsmanic frequently, as do many of us, 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.
--
JohnT

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. Although the post eliciting your
erroneous criticism was by Dudley Henriques, I'm not clear how my
comment makes me an ally of Mixie. In any case, using faulty
arguments to refute arguments is a bit problematic.

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.

Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie. But he
actually has been right on a couple of occasions and I have said
so. I beleive once was in 2006 and again in 2007.


The funny thing is it's clear from his retinue of loyal detractors that
he's a notorious troll, but what's less clear is where from. I'm pretty
familiar with the rec.arts.tv rogue's gallery by now ("trotsky",
"Ubiquitous", "Sound of Trumpet", and several nymshifting trolls
including "the homophobe", "the Obamaphobe", and the infamous Seamus
MacRae) and "Mxsmanic" isn't one of them. I'm guessing that like "Lady
Veteran" and "womanGoddess" before him he's a troll principally of other
groups that has decided to add to rec.arts.tv's sources of woe
temporarily for reasons probably beyond the ability of any sane mind to
fathom.

Ah. You see one fof the problems here is that this is all
cross-posted to:

(a) rec.aviation.piloting,
(b) rec.travel.air,
(c) rec.arts.movies.past-films,
(d) rec.arts.tv,
(e) alt.gossip.celebrities

I can see how the topic is relevant to (a) and (b), the group I'm
in, but the relevance to (c), (d) and (e) certainly hard to see.
In fact, I think I'll reset Followups.




--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

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. Although the post eliciting your
erroneous criticism was by Dudley Henriques, I'm not clear how my
comment makes me an ally of Mixie. In any case, using faulty
arguments to refute arguments is a bit problematic.

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.

Now you're gtting nasty, calling me an ally of Mixie. But he
actually has been right on a couple of occasions and I have said
so. I beleive once was in 2006 and again in 2007.


I rather be a broken clock...

airplanes...all they do is CRASH!

Who knows how many airplanes crash a year..thousands. You only hear about it when a rock star
is in it....

and what about all those 'used' airplanes for sale? You buy one and you're dead.


The Starmaker