Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
in [Airline Travel]
|
From: a on 4 Jul 2010 17:21 On Jul 4, 3:26 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq...(a)rcn.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 12:30 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut > > I sometimes think, though, that Dudley Henriques is actually a > > sock puppet of Mixie's. > > Surely you jest? :-))))))))))))))))))))))) > Best way to eliminate this laughable mystery would be to have someone > who knows me personally on the forum through private email write to me > then ask them what was said in our private email. Jim Logajan could do > that if you wish. Personally I would hope you are a much better judge > of character than having to do this as I see it as a waste of > bandwidth, but what the hell...........have a go if you wish; > otherwise, you have my word that what you are postulating as a > possibility is a waste of your "thinking time" :-)) > Dudley Henriques > > > ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...(a)cox.net) ************* > > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * > > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * I can't speak for you, Dudley, but I would be concerned about the opinions others might have of me only if I valued their opinion.
From: Ala on 5 Jul 2010 09:04 "Wingnut" <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote in message news:i0pggb$h1o$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > 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/
From: Wingnut on 7 Jul 2010 01:54 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:32:34 -0700, Hatunen wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut > <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> 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.
From: Wingnut on 7 Jul 2010 02:07 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:30:45 -0700, Hatunen wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:24:44 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut > <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote: > >>On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:32:31 -0700, Hatunen wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 02:44:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut >>> <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> 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.)
From: Wingnut on 7 Jul 2010 02:12
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:04:51 -0400, Ala wrote: > "Wingnut" <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote in message > news:i0pggb$h1o$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > >> 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. :-) |