Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane
in [Airline Travel]
|
From: Mxsmanic on 7 Jul 2010 04:52 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.
From: Hatunen on 7 Jul 2010 16:04 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:07:24 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote: >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." 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 (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: The Starmaker on 7 Jul 2010 19:26 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
From: Wull on 7 Jul 2010 19:30 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" <starmaker(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:4C350D27.10DE(a)ix.netcom.com... > 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
From: Ala on 7 Jul 2010 20:51
"Wingnut" <wingnut45544(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote in message news:i115rk$932$5(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> 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 :) |