Re: This group is full of morons

[William R. Mattil]

Paul G. wrote:

> I'm a USAF vet. I'll point out that fighter pilots
> don't cancel their flights because of a little rain. And no, they
> don't have windshield wipers either.

The data on the aircraft is inaccurate. Some actually do have wipers,
and those that don't have other methods of dealing with moisture on the
windscreen. High pressure air (probably heated) being a commonly used
solution.

The Douglas A-4A and A4B had wipers (from memory) and later A-4's used
high pressure airflow.

Bill

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 9, 10:40 am, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ANYONE WHO'S NOT INTO SELF-DELUSION, on the other hand, might try to do
> some sort of objective comparison of injuries between NASCAR and
> cycling.

If not self-delusion, then what manner of delusion is it?

It is easier to remember that it would simply be a waste of time.

 

[Paul G.]

On Mar 10, 12:00 pm, "William R. Mattil" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > I'm a USAF vet. I'll point out that fighter pilots
> > don't cancel their flights because of a little rain. And no, they
> > don't have windshield wipers either.
>
> The data on the aircraft is inaccurate. Some actually do have wipers,
> and those that don't have other methods of dealing with moisture on the
> windscreen. High pressure air (probably heated) being a commonly used
> solution.
>
> The Douglas A-4A and A4B had wipers (from memory) and later A-4's used
> high pressure airflow.

The A-4 isn't a fighter, it's a ground attack plane. But I dunno-
maybe Spads had windshield wipers. ;-)
-Paul

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > That's it. No more childish rants on rbr. They are not seemly, nor in good
> > taste.
>
> Good taste is andouillette in condensed milk.

Is that kosher?

--
Michael Press

 

[Paul G.]

On Mar 10, 12:16 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:40 am, Fred Fredburger
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ANYONE WHO'S NOT INTO SELF-DELUSION, on the other hand, might try to do
> > some sort of objective comparison of injuries between NASCAR and
> > cycling.
>
> If not self-delusion, then what manner of delusion is it?
>
> It is easier to remember that it would simply be a waste of time.

Check out the "dead cyclists" thread and then get back to me on who's
deluded.
-Paul

 

[Michael Baldwin]

>That's it. No more childish rants on rbr. They are
>not seemly, nor in good taste.
>--
>Michael Press

Note to Michael Press - If the above is not your quote I sincerely
apologize.
Next, regarding the abomination that's WebTV don't blame the inanimate
black box blame _ME_!
I have no problem with admitting my imperfections other than the time
consumed in doing so.
Again I apologize for mis-quoting you, that's truly not my style.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9976f2b6-7bb4-45a4-8811-88092dcac82f@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 4:16 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A more extreme
>> example of the fitness and skills a Nascar driver needs are fighter
>> pilots. They both have to be able to understand, and react, to
>> stimulus, under massive pressure, and G forces, in a split second,
>> with precise, controlled physical movements, and then do it, over and
>> over for hours at a time.
>
> Now that's a hoot! I'm a USAF vet.

So is Kunich.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> >That's it. No more childish rants on rbr. They are
> >not seemly, nor in good taste.
> >--
> >Michael Press
>
> Note to Michael Press - If the above is not your quote I sincerely
> apologize.
> Next, regarding the abomination that's WebTV don't blame the inanimate
> black box blame _ME_!
> I have no problem with admitting my imperfections other than the time
> consumed in doing so.
> Again I apologize for mis-quoting you, that's truly not my style.
>

Those are words are entirely mine. There were words at the same
quotation level that are not mine. No offense taken.

My intent was to highlight the state of affairs in rbr.
To wit: rants, childish and otherwise, are the norm.
No use shoveling against the tide.

--
Michael Press

 

[Paul G.]

On Mar 10, 3:36 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>
> > >That's it. No more childish rants on rbr. They are
> > >not seemly, nor in good taste.
> > >--
> > >Michael Press
>
> > Note to Michael Press - If the above is not your quote I sincerely
> > apologize.
> > Next, regarding the abomination that's WebTV don't blame the inanimate
> > black box blame _ME_!
> > I have no problem with admitting my imperfections other than the time
> > consumed in doing so.
> > Again I apologize for mis-quoting you, that's truly not my style.
>
> Those are words are entirely mine. There were words at the same
> quotation level that are not mine. No offense taken.
>
> My intent was to highlight the state of affairs in rbr.
> To wit: rants, childish and otherwise, are the norm.
> No use shoveling against the tide.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Damn! He's groveling and kissing your feet like he accidentally
insulted The Godfather. "Mungo impressed!"
-Paul

 

[Michael Baldwin]

Paul G.

>Damn! He's groveling and kissing your feet like he accidentally
>insulted The Godfather. "Mungo impressed!" -Paul

Believe it not Paul G. (who served in the USAF) I enjoy a good round of
civil debate. I thought I had made an error and mis-quoted Michael
Press. Call it what you want (because you will) I call it an apology.

Oh and as long as we're OT, I see/read besides being a bullshiter you're
a bully too. Every bully I've ever known was afraid or ashamed of
something. What'd you do Paul G.? Or is it who did you?

just regards - Mike Baldwin

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Paul G. wrote:
<more irrelevant stuff>

Bill said "the" and you didn't respond so he's the winner.

 

[Paul G.]

On Mar 10, 4:44 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> Paul G.
>
> >Damn! He's groveling and kissing your feet like he accidentally
> >insulted The Godfather. "Mungo impressed!" -Paul
>
> Believe it not Paul G. (who served in the USAF) I enjoy a good round of
> civil debate. I thought I had made an error and mis-quoted Michael
> Press. Call it what you want (because you will) I call it an apology.

An apology is a good thing. Repeated apologies are groveling and
unseemly. It's not like you swerved and clipped his front wheel or
otherwise did him real injury.

> Oh and as long as we're OT, I see/read besides being a bullshiter you're
> a bully too. Every bully I've ever known was afraid or ashamed of
> something. What'd you do Paul G.? Or is it who did you?

Sounds like projection to me. I'm holding my own here against a whole
pack of you jackals. I'm not sure how I can be bullying the lot of
you. I think that tragedy has pretty much shut up the rest of them,
but if you'd like to continue, have at it.
-Paul

 

[Paul G.]

On Mar 10, 5:23 pm, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
>
> <more irrelevant stuff>
>
> Bill said "the" and you didn't respond so he's the winner.

I think that's "whiner".
-Paul

 

[Michael Baldwin]

Paul G. writes;

>if you'd like to continue, have at it. -Paul

Sure! Care to comment on this link?

www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0879388439/ref=dp_image_text...

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <68cb6525-5f2b-4116-ab9f-32609e0b365b@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you want more data on the relative vulnerability of cyclists vs
> people protected by the mass of a car you might contemplate the
> outcome of that sheriff car vs the cyclists. That, unfortunately, is
> exactly what I'm talking about. Those cyclists would have walked away
> without a scratch had they been cocooned in a roll cage, safety
> harness and full face helmet. That's simple physics... and common
> sense.

If you had even the slightest amount of common sense you would be able to
comprehend that crashing in a car at high speeds will hurt you. It's more than just
"scratches" that are visible that are the problem. Even if you didn't previously
understand that after you've had it explained, if you had the slightest amount of
common sense you'd accept that and learn, rather than plowing on with the same
foolish twaddle. By the way, only a complete moron would use an accident in which
cyclists were killed to further his own hapless arguments. You're a real class act,
Paultard.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Paul G. wrote:
>
> > I'm detecting a note of desperation in your post.
>
> But he's not desperate enough to claim victory yet.

Claims of "wins" and "ass kickings" are one of the first signs of someone way out
of their depth in usenet. Or someone so clueless they don't know they're clueless.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Paul G.]

On Mar 10, 7:03 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <68cb6525-5f2b-4116-ab9f-32609e0b3...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If you want more data on the relative vulnerability of cyclists vs
> > people protected by the mass of a car you might contemplate the
> > outcome of that sheriff car vs the cyclists. That, unfortunately, is
> > exactly what I'm talking about. Those cyclists would have walked away
> > without a scratch had they been cocooned in a roll cage, safety
> > harness and full face helmet. That's simple physics... and common
> > sense.
>
> If you had even the slightest amount of common sense you would be able to
> comprehend that crashing in a car at high speeds will hurt you.

What is it with you? I've never said it "wouldn't hurt you" indeed I
supplied the Tony Stewart article which stated he WAS hurt- he bruised
his foot in a"spectacular 150 mph crash." That's called a "strawman
argument".

> By the way, only a complete moron would use an accident in which
> cyclists were killed to further his own hapless arguments. You're a real class act,
> Paultard.

Says the guy who's trying to do exactly that. Like I said, I've been
there, waiting for the ambulance, trying to remember my first aid
training. I also lost another friend around the same time, hit when
some driver was changing a cassette and drifted to the right. If you
think NASCAR is way more dangerous than cycling you just got a wake up
call.
-Paul

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Fred Fredburger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Paul G. wrote:
>>
>>> I'm detecting a note of desperation in your post.
>> But he's not desperate enough to claim victory yet.
>
> Claims of "wins" and "ass kickings" are one of the first signs of someone way out
> of their depth in usenet. Or someone so clueless they don't know they're clueless.
>

If he is able to continue this level of insanity for a couple years, he
just might be a contender.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 10, 11:12 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:16 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now that's a hoot! I'm a USAF vet. I'll point out that fighter pilots
> don't cancel their flights because of a little rain. And no, they
> don't have windshield wipers either. Comparing them with pudgy NASCAR
> bozos who only know how to turn left is an insult to our troops. Why
> are you mixing in fighter pilots, motorcycle racers, triathletes, and
> decathletes? I haven't said anything against any of those groups; in
> fact I've got two motorcycles. I said "NASCAR drivers are wusses
> compared to bike racers." and I gave lots of reasons why I hold that
> opinion. (now some of that was tongue -in-cheek, but apparently some
> of you are humor impaired.)

Look, insulting NECKCAR drivers for being pussies is
merely run-of-the-mill RBR obnoxious, but you just explicitly
_refused_ to insult triathletes. We cannot allow that kind of
behavior on RBR. Pipe down until you've unlearned some
manners.

Ben
RBR Chief of Protocol

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <b2e29056-b1ca-4deb-8b26-adb7439665d2@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 7:03 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <68cb6525-5f2b-4116-ab9f-32609e0b3...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > If you want more data on the relative vulnerability of cyclists vs
> > > people protected by the mass of a car you might contemplate the
> > > outcome of that sheriff car vs the cyclists. That, unfortunately, is
> > > exactly what I'm talking about. Those cyclists would have walked away
> > > without a scratch had they been cocooned in a roll cage, safety
> > > harness and full face helmet. That's simple physics... and common
> > > sense.
> >
> > If you had even the slightest amount of common sense you would be able
> > to comprehend that crashing in a car at high speeds will hurt you.
>
> What is it with you? I've never said it "wouldn't hurt you" indeed I
> supplied the Tony Stewart article which stated he WAS hurt- he bruised
> his foot in a"spectacular 150 mph crash." That's called a "strawman
> argument".

As I said previously, how badly is his foot bruised? Are you aware that there are
seriously different degrees of bruising? You continue trivializing the damage to car
racers from crashes, all the while harrumphing about how much more awesome bike
racers are. You know, bike racers *are* pretty awe-inspiring. The problem you have is
the need to make bike racers into demigods while ignoring the skills of other
sportsmen. A bit of chamois sniffing going on there, I'd say.

> > By the way, only a complete moron would use an accident in which
> > cyclists were killed to further his own hapless arguments. You're a real
> > class act, Paultard.
>
> Says the guy who's trying to do exactly that. Like I said, I've been
> there, waiting for the ambulance, trying to remember my first aid
> training. I also lost another friend around the same time, hit when
> some driver was changing a cassette and drifted to the right. If you
> think NASCAR is way more dangerous than cycling you just got a wake up
> call.

I'm trying to make further *my* argument by using an accident in which cyclists
were killed? Really? Speaking of strawmen... Tell me how many times racing cyclists
have been killed by someone changing a cassette tape. See, you're trying to bring
*all* cycling into the discussion and ignore the traffic accidents that cars are
involved in on a daily basis. Silly person...

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?