Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
obvious, indeed blindingly so.

Is this a subtle attempt to rewrite history and claim that he's always
been your ally, as a means of deflecting uncomfortable questions
regarding why he switched sides? After all if he didn't switch sides
questions about why he did will look silly rather than calling your
character into question, so such a pretense would seem to serve a useful
purpose for you.

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

Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly
just to nettle you?

No problem. Used to be you were facing a certain death sentence, but,
these days, there are treatment options that can dramatically slow the
progression of Alzheimer's.

Anyway, here it is again:

"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."

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.

Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup with
a lot of posts on the topic, though.

... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...

OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)

I don't know. Why can't we? Why is it that after I posted

"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."

(there it is again!)

you started making repeated nasty and sly suggestions about me in public?
Insulting my intelligence repeatedly by talking down to me, suggesting
that there was something wrong with my thinking, and things like that?

It seems you cannot stand to read an opinion that differs from your own
without responding with at least a sneering and looking-down-the-nose
tone to whomever just posted it. And *that* makes it hard for anyone to
get along with you, specifically.

The bigger problem is that, while you are entitled to your own opinion,
you aren't entitled to your own facts, and your repeated implicit claim
that learning curves could veer wildly about rather than being monotonic
increasing is simply laughable from a scientific perspective.

... 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.

Based on various references and other data, I compute a greater than 97%
chance that this response is a lie intended to conceal a more mundane and
sordid explanation of some sort, with a probable secondary purpose of
trying to make me look silly.

But it was not *I* that brought world domination and Freemasons into the
discussion...so who *really* is the silly one?

We are but pawns in the Grand Plan. I know the location of the keystone,
and I have tickets for the Rose Line.

Yeah, yeah, and meanwhile I'm the chairman of the shadow government of
the United States of America and with a word I could have your hometown
nuked to bedrock. :-)

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.

Perhaps nothing quote so melodramatic, but if the same happened on a
larger scale, involving many "Mxsmanics" that felt entitled not only to
their own opinions but to their own facts, we could see a repeat of what
happened the *last* time such a thing happened.

That was when the Catholic Church, in particular, gained power over much
of Europe and actively promoted ignorance and superstitious beliefs over
knowledge and science. We know the result as the Dark Ages. Witch hunts,
inquisitions, crusades. Cholera, smallpox, bubonic plague. I really don't
think we want a repeat of all that. Do you?

Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?

No, not really. Certainly not with you.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:32:34 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:
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.

Of course it was. That was what I said (and ALL I said, aside from quoted
text, attribution, and headers) in the post that Mxsmanic originally
attacked and that started this whole ball rolling.

Anyone who is unsure can use Google Groups to verify the truth of the
above statement.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:30:45 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

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.

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."

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.
Were Mxsmanic's hilarious claim that it would have been a *dis*advantage
to somehow amazingly turn out to be true, upending decades of research on
learning curves and cognitive science, then P itself would actually be
supported by this -- her prior flight experience would indeed have been
relevant, though not in the way I intended to imply.)

Regardless of all of the above, either P or ~P. You cannot support, or
oppose, both simultaneously.

(And don't give me any guff about Gödel incompleteness, either, or mark
my words I'll turn this thread into the kind of memorable event that
leaves whole newsgroup populations traumatized and fearful of newbies for
years afterward.)

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.

The rest of your post has been deleted largely unread, since it seems you
need this lesson in elementary logic (namely, the Law of the Excluded
Middle) to osmose for a bit before you'll be capable of discussing the
issue rationally.

Have a nice day.

I will respond in-line to one or two bits that caught my eye skimming the
rest of your unpleasant and logic-deficient diatribe, though.

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. It 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 all for you telling Mixie or
Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong yourself.

I didn't and I won't, thanks.

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". 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.)

On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:04:51 -0400, Ala wrote:

"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/

Cute. Why post this here though? Certainly you could have picked a more
violent flamewar to post it into. :-)

Wingnut writes:

True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
obvious, indeed blindingly so.

Disagreement is not animosity.

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.

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.

Are you interested in discussing aviation, by chance?

No, not really. Certainly not with you.

Then this conversation serves no further purpose.

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:07:24 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:30:45 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

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.

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. Perhaps you have me confused with
another poster?

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.

[...]

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 something other than the point I was making
about your error, which really had nothing to do with the broader
question but rather your claim that"certificate" wqas a
misspelling, whihc it is not.

[...]

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 in your
claim that "certificate" was a misspelling. A bold face
statement, not an insuation.

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 who
apparently misreads comments to that you can complain about
things that weren't said.

I'm all for you telling Mixie or
Dudley Henriques he's wrong. But don't do it by being wrong yourself.

I didn't and I won't, thanks.

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.

hat 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 your paranoid
tantrums.

*plonk*


I can't help wondering how old you are, though.

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

Wingnut wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
obvious, indeed blindingly so.

Is this a subtle attempt to rewrite history and claim that he's always
been your ally, as a means of deflecting uncomfortable questions
regarding why he switched sides? After all if he didn't switch sides
questions about why he did will look silly rather than calling your
character into question, so such a pretense would seem to serve a useful
purpose for you.

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

Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly
just to nettle you?

No problem. Used to be you were facing a certain death sentence, but,
these days, there are treatment options that can dramatically slow the
progression of Alzheimer's.

Anyway, here it is again:

"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."

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.

Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup with
a lot of posts on the topic, though.

... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...

OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)

I don't know. Why can't we? Why is it that after I posted

"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."

(there it is again!)

you started making repeated nasty and sly suggestions about me in public?
Insulting my intelligence repeatedly by talking down to me, suggesting
that there was something wrong with my thinking, and things like that?

It seems you cannot stand to read an opinion that differs from your own
without responding with at least a sneering and looking-down-the-nose
tone to whomever just posted it. And *that* makes it hard for anyone to
get along with you, specifically.

The bigger problem is that, while you are entitled to your own opinion,
you aren't entitled to your own facts, and your repeated implicit claim
that learning curves could veer wildly about rather than being monotonic
increasing is simply laughable from a scientific perspective.

... 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.

Based on various references and other data, I compute a greater than 97%
chance that this response is a lie intended to conceal a more mundane and
sordid explanation of some sort, with a probable secondary purpose of
trying to make me look silly.

But it was not *I* that brought world domination and Freemasons into the
discussion...so who *really* is the silly one?

We are but pawns in the Grand Plan. I know the location of the keystone,
and I have tickets for the Rose Line.

Yeah, yeah, and meanwhile I'm the chairman of the shadow government of
the United States of America and with a word I could have your hometown
nuked to bedrock. :-)

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.

Perhaps nothing quote so melodramatic, but if the same happened on a
larger scale, involving many "Mxsmanics" that felt entitled not only to
their own opinions but to their own facts, we could see a repeat of what
happened the *last* time such a thing happened.

That was when the Catholic Church, in particular, gained power over much
of Europe and actively promoted ignorance and superstitious beliefs over
knowledge and science. We know the result as the Dark Ages. Witch hunts,
inquisitions, crusades. Cholera, smallpox, bubonic plague. I really don't
think we want a repeat of all that. Do you?

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!!!

Control tower, we have a problem...

I can now understand how you guys miss your 'destination' by five
hours!!!!

Is there anyway that you airplane news groups can cross off
alt.gossip.celebrities. We are sick of all the airplane posts which have
absolutely nothing to do with celebrity gossip. It would certainly be
appreciated.

Thanks
Wull

"The Starmaker" wrote in message
...
Wingnut wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:05:01 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

True, but not relevant to this discussion. Your disagreement had been
obvious, indeed blindingly so.

Is this a subtle attempt to rewrite history and claim that he's always
been your ally, as a means of deflecting uncomfortable questions
regarding why he switched sides? After all if he didn't switch sides
questions about why he did will look silly rather than calling your
character into question, so such a pretense would seem to serve a useful
purpose for you.

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

Even though I've been reposting it several times a week lately partly
just to nettle you?

No problem. Used to be you were facing a certain death sentence, but,
these days, there are treatment options that can dramatically slow the
progression of Alzheimer's.

Anyway, here it is again:

"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."

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.

Neither am I. Hasn't apparently stopped you flooding that newsgroup with
a lot of posts on the topic, though.

... plus the older fact that Mxsmanic is my enemy ...

OMG! Why can't we all just get along?(R)

I don't know. Why can't we? Why is it that after I posted

"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."

(there it is again!)

you started making repeated nasty and sly suggestions about me in public?
Insulting my intelligence repeatedly by talking down to me, suggesting
that there was something wrong with my thinking, and things like that?

It seems you cannot stand to read an opinion that differs from your own
without responding with at least a sneering and looking-down-the-nose
tone to whomever just posted it. And *that* makes it hard for anyone to
get along with you, specifically.

The bigger problem is that, while you are entitled to your own opinion,
you aren't entitled to your own facts, and your repeated implicit claim
that learning curves could veer wildly about rather than being monotonic
increasing is simply laughable from a scientific perspective.

... 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.

Based on various references and other data, I compute a greater than 97%
chance that this response is a lie intended to conceal a more mundane and
sordid explanation of some sort, with a probable secondary purpose of
trying to make me look silly.

But it was not *I* that brought world domination and Freemasons into the
discussion...so who *really* is the silly one?

We are but pawns in the Grand Plan. I know the location of the
keystone,
and I have tickets for the Rose Line.

Yeah, yeah, and meanwhile I'm the chairman of the shadow government of
the United States of America and with a word I could have your hometown
nuked to bedrock. :-)

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.

Perhaps nothing quote so melodramatic, but if the same happened on a
larger scale, involving many "Mxsmanics" that felt entitled not only to
their own opinions but to their own facts, we could see a repeat of what
happened the *last* time such a thing happened.

That was when the Catholic Church, in particular, gained power over much
of Europe and actively promoted ignorance and superstitious beliefs over
knowledge and science. We know the result as the Dark Ages. Witch hunts,
inquisitions, crusades. Cholera, smallpox, bubonic plague. I really don't
think we want a repeat of all that. Do you?

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!!!

Control tower, we have a problem...

I can now understand how you guys miss your 'destination' by five
hours!!!!

Wull wrote:

Is there anyway that you airplane news groups can cross off
alt.gossip.celebrities. We are sick of all the airplane posts which have
absolutely nothing to do with celebrity gossip. It would certainly be
appreciated.

Thanks
Wull

Celebrities fly airplanes, ...and they die in them.

I was looking for a music CD, found it and wondered why these guys
didn't come out with another CD, found out they all died in a plane
crash.

Lesson is, you don't put celebrities in airplanes, you put
nobodies..nobody cares about..nobodies.

Pilot error is another way of saying you got dummies flying airplanes.

It's a taxicab in the sky..

In otherwords, they need to *start* arresting 'airplane pilots' for
Murder.


Not Doctor error,
not pilot error...
Murder.


The Starmaker

What you say has some truth to it Star, but isn't one post enough about a
sick pilot and a flying hostess. It seems like that title has been going on
for years and years.

Wull

"The Starmaker" wrote in message
...
Wull wrote:

Is there anyway that you airplane news groups can cross off
alt.gossip.celebrities. We are sick of all the airplane posts which have
absolutely nothing to do with celebrity gossip. It would certainly be
appreciated.

Thanks
Wull

Celebrities fly airplanes, ...and they die in them.

I was looking for a music CD, found it and wondered why these guys
didn't come out with another CD, found out they all died in a plane
crash.

Lesson is, you don't put celebrities in airplanes, you put
nobodies..nobody cares about..nobodies.

Pilot error is another way of saying you got dummies flying airplanes.

It's a taxicab in the sky..

In otherwords, they need to *start* arresting 'airplane pilots' for
Murder.


Not Doctor error,
not pilot error...
Murder.


The Starmaker