QANTAS suspended
Michael Galbraith
ABC news
US suspends Qantas repairs amid 'irregularities'
United States regulators have withdrawn Qantas's authority to repair
American aircrafts, saying there are irregularities in the airline's
maintenance operations.
The US Federal Aviation Authority, the equivalent to Australia's Civil
Aviation Safety Authority, suspended approval for Qantas to perform
maintancence on any American aircraft in Australia after an audit last
month.
FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told ABC Radio the problem surrounded a bearings
and seals plant.
He would not identify the details of the problems saying only that there
were irregularities.
Qantas is playing down the suspension saying it is temporary and the
situation will be reassessed.
Mr Takemoto agreed but said at this stage there is no timeframe allocated
for a reassessment.
Chris
The FAA has not withdrawn the authority to repair American aircrafts, only
the authority to repair engine bearings, rotating parts and seals.
Thats a huge difference mate
>US regulators have withdrawn approval for Qantas to repair some parts on
American aircraft after identifying irregularities in the airline's
>maintenance and engineering operations.
>The US Federal Aviation Administration confirmed yesterday that it had
suspended certification for some of Qantas's Sydney-based operations >after
a routine audit last month.
>FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told The Australian that the suspension applied
to Qantas's bearing and seal shop, which works on engine >bearings, rotating
parts and seals. "That was found to not meet acceptable standards," he said.
>"Their certificate has been suspended only with regard to that bearing and
seal shop and it was suspended, we believe, on April 20.
>"That withdrawal of authority will be reinstated when they show that things
are being done as they should."
Michael Galbraith <galb...@no.spam.thanks.hotmail.com> schrieb in im
Newsbeitrag: MlmT4.10699$X4.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Ben Matthes
On "Meet the Press" (Ch 10 Sunday 11.30am) The MINISTER for Transport
was asked about this precise item, and he did not know - well did not
state in his reply - that the withdrawal was limited to only to what
you have described. The press assumed that the withdrawal meant
maintenance of aircraft evidenced by the way they asked their
questions and the Minister responded accordingly.
On another issue - the host journo asked a question of the Minister
about PRM at Sydney stating that :
"critics have said................." yada yada yada and mentioned the
same items about the PRM that Tamas K had raised in irrational posts
to this newsgroup on 11/5.
So that constitutes journalist research does it? read a few irrational
posts off the internet and launch them at the Minister - money for jam
- where can I get a job like that?
HAND
:-)
"Chris" <dbi...@primus.com.au> wrote:
Ben Matthes.
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a tough job, but I have plenty of karma to work off
Ted Harrison
"Chris" <dbi...@primus.com.au>
> Where did you get this story from?
> The FAA has not withdrawn the authority to repair American aircrafts, only
> the authority to repair engine bearings, rotating parts and seals.
> Thats a huge difference mate
>
> >US regulators have withdrawn approval for Qantas to repair some parts on
> American aircraft after identifying irregularities in the airline's
> >maintenance and engineering operations.
What don't you understand about the word "some" ?
James Weber
wrote:
>
>"Ted Harrison" <ha...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
>>
>> > > Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law"
>>
I think this is more serious than the QF spin doctors would like the
public to belive. The FAA is very sticky about unauthorized changes in
anything. Believe it or not, this sensitivity also can be traced back
to the Crash of Air Florida Flight 90 discussed in the reverse thrust
thread.
If you cannot do the work with the approved materials, then you
either get the substitute materials approved, or you don't do it any
longer. I don't think is speaks well for QF management to have simply
changed from approved material with getting the change blessed by the
relevant authorities.
For example, California Air Pollution Regulations effectively forced
the closure of the MD paint shop at Long Beach quite a few years ago.
(most of the paint schemes selected by airlines involved the use of
paints whose Volatile Organic Compounds exceed the permitted levels
for use in California.) Did MD ignore the rules. NO, most of the
aircraft had to be flown to paint shops outside California where the
required paints were legal.
What are the danges in used unapproved materials? Unknown, but one of
the contributing factors to the Air Florida accident was the
replacement of the mixing nozzle on the de-icing equipment. It was
replaced with a part that was though to be identical. It turned out
not to be identical at all.
What no one realized was the de-icing equipment manufacturer took the
standard nozzle and modified the mixing calibration considerably, but
externally the nozzle continue to carry the original equipment
manufacturers identification. The owners of the de-icing equipment
simply bought a new nozzle directly from the orignal nozzle
manufacturer, so it did not have the modifcations the de-icing
equipment manufacturer had made to the nozzle.
The result was aircraft (including Air Florida 90) that were de-iced
using this nozzle got substantially less Glycol then was required.
Michael Galbraith
The link is now outdated, however the story is on their news site.
Dont waste my time.
Chris <dbi...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:391ead6d$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> Where did you get this story from?
>
>
>
>
>
Counsel
conitnually blame the Media for QF's and others, inadequacies, when ya can't
read properly or get the thread of a conversation..Idiot:)
Chris <dbi...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:391ead6d$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> Where did you get this story from?
> the authority to repair engine bearings, rotating parts and seals.
> Thats a huge difference mate
>
>
>
> >US regulators have withdrawn approval for Qantas to repair some parts on
> >maintenance and engineering operations.
>
> >The US Federal Aviation Administration confirmed yesterday that it had
> suspended certification for some of Qantas's Sydney-based operations
>after
> a routine audit last month.
> >FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto told The Australian that the suspension
applied
rotating
> parts and seals. "That was found to not meet acceptable standards," he
said.
>
> >"Their certificate has been suspended only with regard to that bearing
and
> seal shop and it was suspended, we believe, on April 20.
>
> >"That withdrawal of authority will be reinstated when they show that
things
> are being done as they should."
>
>
>
>
>
HERD J D
: Where?........I quoted the source in the first 2 lines.
:
: The link is now outdated, however the story is on their news site.
:
: Dont waste my time.
:
The point being, if you care to read your own pointers, Qantas was
disqualified from repiring bearing bushings and rotating bits on
engines, not the whole bloody aircraft.
Get your quotes and facts straight.
You're just as bad as the journalists that are two tired to get a story
right.
--
Cheers,
Herdy. (Jon Herd)
http://members.xoom.com/jdherd
JB
Yet another media beat up, and perhaps proof that the x media laws should be
extended to not allow the media people to have any involvement in ANY other
form of business.
JB
Qantas said today that the matters raised with it by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) do not affect safe operation of its aircraft or
certification approval of its Australian maintenance operations.
Qantas Executive General Manager Aircraft Operations, David Forsyth, said
that the technicalities included the kind of solvents used, the surface
material of the workshop floor, how close new bearings could be stored to
old bearings.
"Issues raised by the audit which led to the temporary suspension of this
certificate included the use of alternative materials," he added.
"Recommendations in a manufacturer's engine manual referred to chemicals and
cleaning solutions which are banned for use in Australia for environmental
reasons. In this instance the FAA had issues with the alternative is that we
identified."
Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law" and had
enforced temporary suspensions on some certificated operations of Qantas and
other airlines in the past to ensure 100 percent compliance in respect of
work for US registered aircraft," he added. "While this is not an unusual
situation we are addressing issues they raised in their audit and making the
necessary adjustments and taking the necessary actions to satisfy the
requirements."
"The temporary suspension of our certificate to perform bearing work for US
aircraft does not impact on any other aspect of our E&M activities."
The recent FAA routine audits raised some issues in one workshop which
relate only to work done on US aircraft by Qantas under contract. Qantas
expects to clear the short list of issues raised by the FAA which relate to
engine bearings work for US registered aircraft only.
"Qantas is close to completing the construction and fit out of a new seals
and bearing workshop at the airlines Mascot Jet base. This replacement
workshop is expected receive accreditation in the future," he added.
Issued by Qantas Public Affairs
Ted Harrison
Thanks for the Qantas hand-out, below, which you accept as "fact".
I've been through it again and again -- but damned if I can see where
it rebuts what you call "yet another media beat up" .
Can you point me to the bit that rebuts earlier reports that the
FAA had suspended its approval for Qantas
to carry out maintenance on bearings and seals?
And while we're on the subject, why is a new bearing and seal shop needed?
"JB" <john_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FRJT4.29250$PL4.5...@ozemail.com.au...
Ted Harrison
"JB" <john_b...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law" and had
> enforced temporary suspensions
Picky little buggers, eh?
Before we know where we are, we'll have all safety regulators
"insisting on the letter of the law"...
Also... if this is an official Qantas hand-out, you'd think they'd take the
trouble
to get the grammar right, wouldn't you ?
Ted Harrison
"Ted Harrison" <ha...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
> > Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law"
The more I think about the use of this phrase, in the context,
the more I tend to the conclusion that the people who produced
it -- and those who authorised it -- are incompetent to have anything to do
with public relations.
And here was me thinking that Forsyth was a welcome change to the
Bow Tie ...
P C
You may be right but give him some time he has a lot about him
that make caesius look like a paragon of loyalty in comparison.
Lets see which way the new skirt chooses ( if at all )
Rod Speed
P C <cle...@vianet.net.au> wrote in message news:391f...@pink.one.net.au...
> Ted Harrison <ha...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
>>>> Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law"
>> The more I think about the use of this phrase, in the
>> context, the more I tend to the conclusion that the people
>> who produced it -- and those who authorised it -- are
>> incompetent to have anything to do with public relations.
>> And here was me thinking that Forsyth
>> was a welcome change to the Bow Tie ...
> Although you swoop in like a wire guided homing ferret
How about - trying just to see how it feels Curbing
the smart arse insults. It degrades you and the thread.
Wonder who said that not 10 mins earlier ? Looked up the word hypocrite yet ?
> You may be right but give him some time he has a lot about him
> that make caesius look like a paragon of loyalty in comparison.
God knows what you think that means. Classic PCCryptic |-)
> Lets see which way the new skirt chooses ( if at all )
She doesnt get to choose a damned thing. She's just a figurehead.
John Ford
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:391f9bc3$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> P C <cle...@vianet.net.au> wrote in message
news:391f...@pink.one.net.au...
> > Ted Harrison <ha...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
>
> >>>> Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law"
>
> >> The more I think about the use of this phrase, in the
> >> context, the more I tend to the conclusion that the people
> >> who produced it -- and those who authorised it -- are
> >> incompetent to have anything to do with public relations.
>
> >> And here was me thinking that Forsyth
> >> was a welcome change to the Bow Tie ...
>
> > Although you swoop in like a wire guided homing ferret
>
> How about - trying just to see how it feels Curbing
> the smart arse insults. It degrades you and the thread.
>
> Wonder who said that not 10 mins earlier ? Looked up the word hypocrite
yet ?
Wouldn't it be up to Ted to decide if that was an insult? Given that they
know each other I doubt it. It doesn't look like one to me, perhaps a smiley
might have been in order, but then we all know keyboard economy is SOP for
Phil ;^) .
>
> > You may be right but give him some time he has a lot about him
> > that make caesius look like a paragon of loyalty in comparison.
>
> God knows what you think that means. Classic PCCryptic |-)
>
> > Lets see which way the new skirt chooses ( if at all )
>
> She doesnt get to choose a damned thing. She's just a figurehead.
You've both lost me here, who is the skirt?
>
>
>
Rod Speed
John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
message news:95837993...@pluto.global.net.au...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> P C <cle...@vianet.net.au> wrote
>>> Ted Harrison <ha...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
>>>>>> Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law"
>>>> The more I think about the use of this phrase, in the
>>>> context, the more I tend to the conclusion that the people
>>>> who produced it -- and those who authorised it -- are
>>>> incompetent to have anything to do with public relations.
>>>> And here was me thinking that Forsyth
>>>> was a welcome change to the Bow Tie ...
>>> Although you swoop in like a wire guided homing ferret
>> How about - trying just to see how it feels Curbing
>> the smart arse insults. It degrades you and the thread.
>> Wonder who said that not 10 mins earlier ? Looked up the word hypocrite yet ?
> Wouldn't it be up to Ted to decide if that was an insult?
Not when Phil used that pompous posturing to me not 10 mins
earlier and proceeded to attempt a smart arsed insult himself.
I get to rub his nose in his flagrant hypocrisy.
> Given that they know each other I doubt it.
Whether Ted sees it as an insult is completely
and utterly irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy.
> It doesn't look like one to me, perhaps a smiley might have been in
> order, but then we all know keyboard economy is SOP for Phil ;^) .
Still completely and utterly irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy.
>>> You may be right but give him some time he has a lot about him
>>> that make caesius look like a paragon of loyalty in comparison.
>> God knows what you think that means. Classic PCCryptic |-)
>>> Lets see which way the new skirt chooses ( if at all )
>> She doesnt get to choose a damned thing. She's just a figurehead.
> You've both lost me here, who is the skirt?
The new chairman of Qantas.
John Ford
>
> John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
> message news:95837993...@pluto.global.net.au...
> > Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> P C <cle...@vianet.net.au> wrote
> >>> Ted Harrison <ha...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
>
> >>>>>> Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law"
>
> >>>> The more I think about the use of this phrase, in the
> >>>> context, the more I tend to the conclusion that the people
> >>>> who produced it -- and those who authorised it -- are
> >>>> incompetent to have anything to do with public relations.
>
> >>>> And here was me thinking that Forsyth
> >>>> was a welcome change to the Bow Tie ...
>
> >>> Although you swoop in like a wire guided homing ferret
>
> >> How about - trying just to see how it feels Curbing
> >> the smart arse insults. It degrades you and the thread.
>
> >> Wonder who said that not 10 mins earlier ? Looked up the word
hypocrite yet ?
>
> > Wouldn't it be up to Ted to decide if that was an insult?
>
> Not when Phil used that pompous posturing to me not 10 mins
> earlier and proceeded to attempt a smart arsed insult himself.
>
> I get to rub his nose in his flagrant hypocrisy.
>
> > Given that they know each other I doubt it.
>
> Whether Ted sees it as an insult is completely
> and utterly irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy.
Phil's a hypocrite only if it's an insult. It's an insult if Ted perceives
it to be one? Therefore it is relevant as to how Ted perceives it.
>
> > It doesn't look like one to me, perhaps a smiley might have been in
> > order, but then we all know keyboard economy is SOP for Phil ;^) .
>
> Still completely and utterly irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy.
>
> >>> You may be right but give him some time he has a lot about him
> >>> that make caesius look like a paragon of loyalty in comparison.
>
> >> God knows what you think that means. Classic PCCryptic |-)
>
> >>> Lets see which way the new skirt chooses ( if at all )
>
> >> She doesnt get to choose a damned thing. She's just a figurehead.
>
> > You've both lost me here, who is the skirt?
>
> The new chairman of Qantas.
Cheers.
Martin Taylor
MG> taken from
MG> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-13may2000-59.htm ABC
MG> news
MG> US suspends Qantas repairs amid 'irregularities'
I wonder if this is just another way of the US government redirecting
work back to US based companies, in much the same way as it subsidises
its primary industry. It might be using the so called Qantas incidents
as a red herring, perhaps.
.. Sign of modern chivalry: A man opening an automatic door for a lady..
MJT
Take a "p" out of gipps for an email reply
Gippsland, Victoria, Australia
Ted Harrison
"John Ford" <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote
> >
> > > Although you swoop in like a wire guided homing ferret
> >
<snip>
> Wouldn't it be up to Ted to decide if that was an insult?
I took it as a sort of compliment, actually. Sort of...
<GRIN>
Rod Speed
John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> P C <cle...@vianet.net.au> wrote
>>>>> Ted Harrison <ha...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Mr Forsyth said that FAA insisted on "the letter of the law"
>>>>>> The more I think about the use of this phrase, in the
>>>>>> context, the more I tend to the conclusion that the people
>>>>>> who produced it -- and those who authorised it -- are
>>>>>> incompetent to have anything to do with public relations.
>>>>>> And here was me thinking that Forsyth
>>>>>> was a welcome change to the Bow Tie ...
>>>>> Although you swoop in like a wire guided homing ferret
>>>> How about - trying just to see how it feels Curbing
>>>> the smart arse insults. It degrades you and the thread.
>>>> Wonder who said that not 10 mins earlier ?
>>>> Looked up the word hypocrite yet ?
>>> Wouldn't it be up to Ted to decide if that was an insult?
>> Not when Phil used that pompous posturing to me not 10 mins
>> earlier and proceeded to attempt a smart arsed insult himself.
>> I get to rub his nose in his flagrant hypocrisy.
>>> Given that they know each other I doubt it.
>> Whether Ted sees it as an insult is completely
>> and utterly irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy.
> Phil's a hypocrite only if it's an insult.
Complete crap. Mine wasnt, whatever Phil claimed.
> It's an insult if Ted perceives it to be one?
More crap. There is also the tiny matter of the intention.
> Therefore it is relevant as to how Ted perceives it.
How Ted perceives it is completely and utterly
irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy and posturing.
Rod Speed
Martin Taylor <mta...@gipps.com.au> wrote in
message news:0000...@bigpond.com...
> Michael Galbraith said..
>> taken from
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newslink/nat/newsnat-13may2000-59.htm
>> ABC news US suspends Qantas repairs amid 'irregularities'
> I wonder if this is just another way of the US government
> redirecting work back to US based companies, in much the
> same way as it subsidises its primary industry. It might be
> using the so called Qantas incidents as a red herring, perhaps.
Mindless conspiracy theory.
HERD J D
:
: I wonder if this is just another way of the US government redirecting
: work back to US based companies, in much the same way as it subsidises
: its primary industry. It might be using the so called Qantas incidents
: as a red herring, perhaps.
:
Bingo!
John Ford
Presumaby you were claiming Phil was a hypocrite for insulting Ted after
claiming you had insulted him? If so, your alleged insult is irrelevant
here. If Ted is not insulted (and, as you point out below, Phil did not mean
to insult him), Phils not a hypocrite.
>
> > It's an insult if Ted perceives it to be one?
>
> More crap. There is also the tiny matter of the intention.
Yes, good point, but again, as they know each other I doubt it was intended
as an insult either.
>
> > Therefore it is relevant as to how Ted perceives it.
>
> How Ted perceives it is completely and utterly
> irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy and posturing.
Well, it would appear that Ted didn't take it as an insult, therefore in
this case Phil is not a hypocrite, unless you can prove he meant it as an
insult?
Rod Speed
John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
Wrong. Again. I JUST pointed out the flagrant hypocrisy
involved in using PRECISELY the same type of phrase
to Ted just after pompously posturing about me using it.
I didnt even say that I agreed with his claim that it was an insult.
> If so, your alleged insult is irrelevant here.
I never even claimed it was an insult, let alone allege that. Do at least TRY to
keep up while desperately trying to bullshit your way out of your predicament.
Heard about the Rule of Holes Ford ?
> If Ted is not insulted (and, as you point
> out below, Phil did not mean to insult him),
I 'pointed out' nothing of sort. I said that MINE wasnt an insult you clown.
> Phils not a hypocrite.
Fraid so. Keep digging.
>>> It's an insult if Ted perceives it to be one?
>> More crap. There is also the tiny matter of the intention.
> Yes, good point, but again, as they know each
> other I doubt it was intended as an insult either.
Your doubts are completely and utterly irrelevant.
As is whether its an insult or not.
>>> Therefore it is relevant as to how Ted perceives it.
>> How Ted perceives it is completely and utterly
>> irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy and posturing.
> Well, it would appear that Ted didn't take it as an insult,
How Ted takes it is completely and utterly irrelevant
to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy and posturing. Keep digging.
> therefore in this case Phil is not a hypocrite,
Wrong. Again.
> unless you can prove he meant it as an insult?
Wrong. Again. Keep digging.
Lets go thru this very very slowly for those with ear to ear dog shit like you.
Phil did PRECISELY what I did just 10 mins after pompously posturing
about it when I did it. Doesnt matter a damn what its called, and hence
it doesnt matter a damn what the recipient takes it as.
Keep digging.
John Ford
" Been having these pathetic little fantasys long" - from you to Phil
DOES NOT EQUAL
"Although you swoop in like a wire guided homing ferret" - from Ted to
Phil
Can you cope with that?
> I didnt even say that I agreed with his claim that it was an insult.
>
> > If so, your alleged insult is irrelevant here.
>
> I never even claimed it was an insult, let alone allege that. Do at least
TRY to
> keep up while desperately trying to bullshit your way out of your
predicament.
Oh I am trying Rod, but you are hard work! This may be defined as a
predicament in your life but it certainly isn't in mine!
>
> Heard about the Rule of Holes Ford ?
No?
> > If Ted is not insulted (and, as you point
> > out below, Phil did not mean to insult him),
>
> I 'pointed out' nothing of sort. I said that MINE wasnt an insult you
clown.
I meant that you pointed out intent was relevant. You with me now? Want me
to go a bit slower?
>
> > Phils not a hypocrite.
>
> Fraid so. Keep digging.
>
> >>> It's an insult if Ted perceives it to be one?
>
> >> More crap. There is also the tiny matter of the intention.
>
> > Yes, good point, but again, as they know each
> > other I doubt it was intended as an insult either.
>
> Your doubts are completely and utterly irrelevant.
>
> As is whether its an insult or not.
That is the only subject on which Phil could be accused of hypocrisy, hence
it is the only thing that is relevant. Other than your despotic rantings
which started the whole thing in the first place.
>
> >>> Therefore it is relevant as to how Ted perceives it.
>
> >> How Ted perceives it is completely and utterly
> >> irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy and posturing.
>
> > Well, it would appear that Ted didn't take it as an insult,
>
> How Ted takes it is completely and utterly irrelevant
> to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy and posturing. Keep digging.
>
> > therefore in this case Phil is not a hypocrite,
>
> Wrong. Again.
>
> > unless you can prove he meant it as an insult?
>
> Wrong. Again. Keep digging.
>
> Lets go thru this very very slowly for those with ear to ear dog shit like
you.
Is this a symptom of you getting rattled? At what point do I get the one
line "all the usual purerile drivel etc " post? Make it soon - you (and I,
lest I be accused of being a hypocrite) are wasting bandwidth.
> Phil did PRECISELY what I did just 10 mins after pompously posturing
> about it when I did it. Doesnt matter a damn what its called, and hence
> it doesnt matter a damn what the recipient takes it as.
>
> Keep digging.
And once again , for your benefit, read it at whatever pace you like, YOU
insulted Phil, Phil DIDN'T insult Ted. Therefore Phil ISN'T a hypocrite.
<SNIP>
Rod Speed
John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
> DOES NOT EQUAL
You can shriek that at the top of your lungs, little boy, doesnt change a thing.
If you cant manage to work out the similarity, your problem. Keep digging.
> Can you cope with that?
Can you let go of your dick for an instant ? Corse you cant.
>> I didnt even say that I agreed with his claim that it was an insult.
>>> If so, your alleged insult is irrelevant here.
>> I never even claimed it was an insult, let alone allege
>> that. Do at least TRY to keep up while desperately
>> trying to bullshit your way out of your predicament.
> Oh I am trying Rod, but you are hard work!
Only for those with a massive problem with ear to ear dog shit. Keep digging.
> This may be defined as a predicament in your life but it certainly isn't in mine!
Pathetic really.
>> Heard about the Rule of Holes Ford ?
> No?
When you're in one, STOP DIGGING. Still, what have got
to lose ? You sure cant look any sillier than you do already.
>>> If Ted is not insulted (and, as you point
>>> out below, Phil did not mean to insult him),
>> I 'pointed out' nothing of sort. I said that MINE wasnt an insult you clown.
> I meant that you pointed out intent was relevant.
Wota pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist. Thats an entirely
separate issue to whether Phile meant to insult him or not.
> You with me now? Want me to go a bit slower?
Wota wanka.
>>> Phils not a hypocrite.
>> Fraid so. Keep digging.
>>>>> It's an insult if Ted perceives it to be one?
>>>> More crap. There is also the tiny matter of the intention.
>>> Yes, good point, but again, as they know each
>>> other I doubt it was intended as an insult either.
>> Your doubts are completely and utterly irrelevant.
>> As is whether its an insult or not.
> That is the only subject on which Phil could be accused of hypocrisy,
Wrong. As always. If he makes a similar remark, even
if it has absolutely nothing to do with an insult, he's still
a flagrant hypocrite when he tried that pompous posturing
to me and then did the same thing himself not 10 mins later.
Keep digging.
> hence it is the only thing that is relevant.
Pathetic really.
> Other than your despotic rantings which started the whole thing in the first place.
Time you used a dictionary boy. And Phil agreed with the bulk of it anyway.
>>>>> Therefore it is relevant as to how Ted perceives it.
>>>> How Ted perceives it is completely and utterly
>>>> irrelevant to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy and posturing.
>>> Well, it would appear that Ted didn't take it as an insult,
>> How Ted takes it is completely and utterly irrelevant
>> to Phil's flagrant hypocrisy and posturing. Keep digging.
>>> therefore in this case Phil is not a hypocrite,
>> Wrong. Again.
>>> unless you can prove he meant it as an insult?
>> Wrong. Again. Keep digging.
>> Lets go thru this very very slowly for those with ear to ear dog shit like you.
> Is this a symptom of you getting rattled?
No need to ask if this is a symptom of you being a pathetic
excuse for a bullshit artist. Stands out like dogs balls.
> At what point do I get the one line "all the usual purerile drivel etc " post?
Wait and see boy.
> Make it soon
Take your demands and shove them where the sun dont
shine, sunshine. Alone with your pathetic excuse for bullshit.
> - you (and I, lest I be accused of being a hypocrite) are wasting bandwidth.
Thought that one up all by yourself did you boy ?
>> Phil did PRECISELY what I did just 10 mins after pompously posturing
>> about it when I did it. Doesnt matter a damn what its called, and hence
>> it doesnt matter a damn what the recipient takes it as.
>> Keep digging.
> And once again , for your benefit, read it at
> whatever pace you like, YOU insulted Phil,
Wrong. As always. Its just one way of saying that that aint gunna happen.
Keep digging.
> Phil DIDN'T insult Ted. Therefore Phil ISN'T a hypocrite.
Pathetic really. That smelly brown stuff dripping from your ears is dog shit.
John Ford
>
<BIG SNIP>
Can't be bothered with going thru the same arguments yet again. All my
original points stand.
Didn't you accuse someone in another group of being foul mouthed? Does that
make you a flagrant hypocrite?
What did I need the dictionary for - Despot?
Regarding the Rule of Holes, enormously amusing, did you make that one up
yourself?
Rod Speed
John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Can't be bothered with going thru the same arguments yet again.
The Rule of Holes eventually dawned on even you eh Ford ?
> All my original points stand.
Like hell they do. They went face down in the mud right from the beginning.
Your pathetic attempts to bullshit your way out of your predicament in spades.
> Didn't you accuse someone in another group of being foul mouthed?
> Does that make you a flagrant hypocrite?
Nope, never made a pompous prat of myself attempting to
tell someone how to post, unlike you and that prat Cleaver.
> What did I need the dictionary for - Despot?
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist
fellas pretending to have ear to ear dog shit ?
John Ford
>
> John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
> > Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Can't be bothered with going thru the same arguments yet again.
>
> The Rule of Holes eventually dawned on even you eh Ford ?
Well, something dawned on me, I don't know that it was that!
> > All my original points stand.
>
> Like hell they do. They went face down in the mud right from the
beginning.
>
> Your pathetic attempts to bullshit your way out of your predicament in
spades.
Translation = "Your pathetic attempts to bullshit your way out of your
predicament "very much so"."
Talk about sentences that should be taken out the back and killed with a
stick!
I didn't attempt to bullshit at all, I just tried to reason with you?
> > Didn't you accuse someone in another group of being foul mouthed?
> > Does that make you a flagrant hypocrite?
>
> Nope, never made a pompous prat of myself attempting to
> tell someone how to post, unlike you and that prat Cleaver.
Did I try to tell you how to post? I don't think so. How do construe from
the above that I was suggesting that you told "someone how to post" . I
suggested that you accused them of being foul mouthed and hence that made
you a hypocrite.
Does this ring a bell (admittedly in this group, not another)?
+Tamas Keresztes <tam...@bigpond.com> wrote in
+message news:391A2653...@bigpond.com...
+
+> Just take it easy please. This is quite unnecessary.
+
+Bit of a contrast to your childish foul mouthed email, little boy.
+
+> If you have nothing to say, might as well keep quiet.
+
+You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all.
+
+> Have a nice life.
+
+Have an awful one. Heavy aircraft at 50 feet every minute.
+
> > What did I need the dictionary for - Despot?
>
> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist
> fellas pretending to have ear to ear dog shit ?
Can't address the question eh?
Rod Speed
John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Can't be bothered with going thru the same arguments yet again.
>> The Rule of Holes eventually dawned on even you eh Ford ?
> Well, something dawned on me, I don't know that it was that!
Can be a problem for those with ear to ear dog shit. Not a clue to their names.
>>> All my original points stand.
>> Like hell they do. They went face down in the mud right from the beginning.
>> Your pathetic attempts to bullshit your way out of your predicament in spades.
> Translation = "Your pathetic attempts to bullshit
> your way out of your predicament "very much so"."
> Talk about sentences that should be taken out the back and killed with a stick!
Thats why the original form was used, cretin child.
> I didn't attempt to bullshit at all,
Liar, there for all to see.
> I just tried to reason with you?
SURE you did Ford.
>>> Didn't you accuse someone in another group of being foul mouthed?
>>> Does that make you a flagrant hypocrite?
>> Nope, never made a pompous prat of myself attempting to
>> tell someone how to post, unlike you and that prat Cleaver.
> Did I try to tell you how to post? I don't think so.
Cant think, ear to ear dog shit.
> How do construe from the above that I was
> suggesting that you told "someone how to post" .
Never construed it 'from the above', cretin child.
> I suggested that you accused them of being foul
> mouthed and hence that made you a hypocrite.
More fool you then cretin child.
> Does this ring a bell (admittedly in this group, not another)?
Completely useless when you cant have
see how foul mouthed he was in his email.
AND I was rubbing his nose in HIS hypocritical
posturing in the first sentence of his you quoted.
Thanks for the proof on that ear to ear dog shit of yours.
> +Tamas Keresztes <tam...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> +message news:391A2653...@bigpond.com...
> +
> +> Just take it easy please. This is quite unnecessary.
> +
> +Bit of a contrast to your childish foul mouthed email, little boy.
> +
> +> If you have nothing to say, might as well keep quiet.
> +
> +You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all.
> +
> +> Have a nice life.
> +
> +Have an awful one. Heavy aircraft at 50 feet every minute.
>>> What did I need the dictionary for - Despot?
>> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist
>> fellas pretending to have ear to ear dog shit ?
> Can't address the question eh?
Too stupid to be able to distinguish between can't and choose not to eh ?
Isnt it time you made a complete fool of yourself
rabitting on about bandwidth again boy ?
Counsel
One wonders as to wether or not, those involved in this mindless idiocy can
take their arguments and abuse elsewhere, ie by snail mail or telephone
perhaps and save those, who are genuinely interested in aviation matters,
and not the nonsense that prevails here, the frustration and anger from
logging on to this NG?
Michaelnews:3921ac0d$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> John Ford <j...@opensystems.net.AYYOU> wrote in
> > Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Can't be bothered with going thru the same arguments yet again.
>
> The Rule of Holes eventually dawned on even you eh Ford ?
>
>
> Like hell they do. They went face down in the mud right from the
beginning.
>
spades.
>
> > Didn't you accuse someone in another group of being foul mouthed?
> > Does that make you a flagrant hypocrite?
>
> Nope, never made a pompous prat of myself attempting to
> tell someone how to post, unlike you and that prat Cleaver.
>
>
> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist
>
>
>
>
Rod Speed
Some gutless wonder hiding behind
Counsel <swaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:3921...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Gentlemen!!!
Gutless!!!!
> Do we really need all this "tit for tat" nonsense on this NG?
Just how many of you is there between those ears, Gutless ?
> One wonders as to wether or not,
You one of those NZ sheep shaggers Gutless ?
Rest of your crap flushed where it belongs.
No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read
what you aint interested in Gutless. If someone is, call the cops.
Mark
Rod Speed wrote:
Jeez Rod, I pray you don't have gun !
Rod Speed
Mark <mark....@nospam.bigpond.com> wrote in message news:3922AFD3...@nospam.bigpond.com...
> Another intelligent thread!
Another intelligent post!