Another piece of blatant ignorance by SL0WMAN

[Flyguy]

He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):

"This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."

So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag. Boy, will THAT be a revelation to aircraft designers! NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag! Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71. It generated so much drag that the fuselage heated to 600F and required special cooling to get rid of the heat. This is called "parasitic drag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag). But SL0WMAN is an idiot, so I don't expect him to understand this.

[Tom Del Rosso]

Flyguy wrote:
> He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
>
> "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage
> in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate
> enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more
> drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of
> energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."

I take that to mean that "faster in thinner air creates the same drag as
slower in denser air."


--
Defund the Thought Police

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 4:33:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
>
> "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
>
> So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag. Boy, will THAT be a revelation to aircraft designers! NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag!

Of course it does. But drag - like lift - depends not only on speed but also on the density of the air in the immediate vicinity of the wing. At higher altitude the density of the air is lower, so you have to fly faster to generate the same lift, but you also generate the same drag - not more - even though you are flying faster.

That was the message I was trying to convey, and Flyguy seems to have entirely missed. Possibly deliberately, but his next paragraph is equally defective.

>Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71. It generated so much drag that the fuselage heated to 600F and required special cooling to get rid of the heat. This is called "parasitic drag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag). But SL0WMAN is an idiot, so I don't expect him to understand this.

What Flyguy hasn't noticed is that the SR-71 was supersonic, which meant that it created shock waves over the whole air-craft - not just the fuselage - and was operating in a very different aerodynamic regime from the aircraft we were talking about.

He linked to a discussion of parasitic drag, which is all about sub-sonic flows.

As is usual when Flyguy tries to pose an an expert, he's just exposed the shallowness of his thinking. Or blatant ignorance, as he would put it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Allison]

Flyguy wrote:
==========
-----------------------------------------------------------------

There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude.
You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there,
but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy.
Variable pitch propellers help you do this."

--------------------------------------------------------------

>
> So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag.

** Not what was said.

> NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag!

** Not when thinner air compensates.

> Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71.

** ROTFLMO !!

How many " variable pitch " props did that thing have ?




..... Phil

[Phil Allison]

** Just for some context, the density air at 60,000 feet is only 10% of that at sea level.

FYI that is the cruising altitude of the Concorde.

The SR 71 likes 85,000 feet better.


..... Phil

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:074e86c1-fb6d-40c5-b526-
db6372...@googlegroups.com:

> So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag.

No, idiot. That is not what he said.

He specifically mentioned that the air is thinner and that THAT
element meant less drag and therefore the ability to go faster for less
cost. So it isn't "more drag" it is the same drag laws and at higher
altitude with less molecules per cubic yard of air, there is less drag
for any given speed. So 500 knots at sea level impinges more on the
plane than 500 knots at 50,000 feet.

Don't see any supersonic jets going supersonic down at sea level.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:d7a84419-9dbb-4968-
9778-289c...@googlegroups.com:

> How many " variable pitch " props did that thing have ?
>

It had a varible inlet and superstructure venturi shape.

Depending on the speed it acted as a ramjet.

"that thing"?

That thing between your ears needs a bullet. Do us a favor and give
it one.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:be0a2933-23b3-49d6-
a9c8-e110...@googlegroups.com:

> The SR 71 likes 85,000 feet better.
>

FYI, that was just the published figure.

[Phil Allison]

DecadentLinux is Incredibly Funny: :

=============================

>
> > How many " variable pitch " props did that thing have ?
> >
> It had a varible inlet and superstructure venturi shape.

** But no props at all.

> "that thing"?

** Yep, it was a " thing ".

Just like you are a " raving idiot".


..... Phil

[Phil Allison]

DecadentLinux...= Stand Up Comedian

======================================

> > The SR 71 likes 85,000 feet better.
> >
> FYI, that was just the published figure.

** So what's the *REAL* one then ???

Maybe 850,000 ? 8.5 million ?

Make my day....

[John Walliker]

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 10:06:56 UTC+1, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

> Don't see any supersonic jets going supersonic down at sea level.

You do sometimes with military jets. I've been on a boat that was overflown
by a couple of low-altitude supersonic jets. It was VERY noisy.

I can also remember the supersonic test flights over the UK during Concorde
development. These were at relatively low altitude.

John

[Phil Allison]

John Walliker wrote:
================

>
> > Don't see any supersonic jets going supersonic down at sea level.
>
> You do sometimes with military jets. I've been on a boat that was overflown
> by a couple of low-altitude supersonic jets. It was VERY noisy.
>
> I can also remember the supersonic test flights over the UK during Concorde
> development. These were at relatively low altitude.
>

** The Fairy Delta 2 ?

IIRC, along a beach area in the south on England in about 1956 ?

Just before the Russians launched Sputnik.



.... Phil

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e4e1df96-e996-4239-
8fa2-b7db...@googlegroups.com:

> ** But no props at all.
>

Yeah... Like I said... A RAMJET.

No props to you. You do not deserve any, putz.

[Phil Allison]

DecadentLinux...is Hysterical
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> > ** But no props at all.
> >
> Yeah... Like I said... A RAMJET.

** ROTFL !!

This fool has missed his natural occupation - as a barber.
Cos he can trim and change context like nobody else.

Maybe he can tell side splitting, wildly racist jokes at the same time ?



...... Phil

[Jeff Layman]

On 11/09/2021 11:47, John Walliker wrote:
> On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 10:06:56 UTC+1, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
>
>> Don't see any supersonic jets going supersonic down at sea level.
>
> You do sometimes with military jets. I've been on a boat that was overflown
> by a couple of low-altitude supersonic jets. It was VERY noisy.

It's been done fairly recently:
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/01/loud-bang-heard-across-london-caused-by-supersonic-fighter-jets>
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-55636583>

--

Jeff

[jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com]

The limiting case is orbit. Satellites can fly for centuries on very
little fuel.





--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 12:07:57 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 02:53:49 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>
> >Flyguy wrote:
> >> He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
> >>
> >> "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage
> >> in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate
> >> enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more
> >> drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of
> >> energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
> >
> >I take that to mean that "faster in thinner air creates the same drag as
> >slower in denser air."
>
> The limiting case is orbit. Satellites can fly for centuries on very
> little fuel.

That's in the Flyguy class - satellites are in orbit, and traveling a lot faster than subsonic airliners, or any kind of electrically powered aircraft.

An satellite with an ion drive is a special case, but it is clearly not an aircraft.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Fred Bloggs]

It's a function aircraft design. Aircraft designed for high altitude flight will generally have lots of wing area to reduce the requirement for excess velocity needed for lift a high altitude. Most of the modern airlines seem to be optimized for 500 knots at 35,000 feet. Wing areas are humongous.

SR-71 was mainly trying to evade intercept by hostile SAMs, so the ultra-high altitude, for its day, was a primary requirement.

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, the drag of the SR-71 is the result of the plane pushing molecules of air aside as it pushes through it. Supersonic flight creates shockwaves, but does not eliminate drag. The SR-71 had PLENTY of drag when it flew subsonically.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 5:37:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 12:12:30 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 4:33:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
> > >
> > > "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
> > >
> > > So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag. Boy, will THAT be a revelation to aircraft designers! NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag!
> > Of course it does. But drag - like lift - depends not only on speed but also on the density of the air in the immediate vicinity of the wing. At higher altitude the density of the air is lower, so you have to fly faster to generate the same lift, but you also generate the same drag - not more - even though you are flying faster.
> >
> > That was the message I was trying to convey, and Flyguy seems to have entirely missed. Possibly deliberately, but his next paragraph is equally defective.
> > >Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71. It generated so much drag that the fuselage heated to 600F and required special cooling to get rid of the heat. This is called "parasitic drag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag). But SL0WMAN is an idiot, so I don't expect him to understand this.
> >
> > What Flyguy hasn't noticed is that the SR-71 was supersonic, which meant that it created shock waves over the whole air-craft - not just the fuselage - and was operating in a very different aerodynamic regime from the aircraft we were talking about.
> >
> > He linked to a discussion of parasitic drag, which is all about sub-sonic flows.
> >
> > As is usual when Flyguy tries to pose an an expert, he's just exposed the shallowness of his thinking. Or blatant ignorance, as he would put it.
>

> Hey SL0WMAN, the drag of the SR-71 is the result of the plane pushing molecules of air aside as it pushes through it.

Of course it is, but this isn't a useful insight.

> Supersonic flight creates shockwaves, but does not eliminate drag. The SR-71 had PLENTY of drag when it flew subsonically.

Why would creating shock waves eliminate drag? And what has the SR-71's subsonic performance have to do with anything?

In fact supersonic flight does have odd features, and the SR-71 had more range when it flew faster. The British- American supersonic airliner - the Concorde had lousy fuel efficiency, and the planned Boeing competitor would have flown faster in order to do better, but Boeing ended up spending more on the design study than it cost to build the Concorde, and decided that the airliner would be much too expensive to make a profit, even with better fuel efficiency.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Allison]

Fred Bloggs wrote:
===============

>
> Aircraft designed for high altitude flight will generally have lots of wing area to reduce the
> requirement for excess velocity needed for lift a high altitude.
> Most of the modern airlines seem to be optimized for 500 knots at 35,000 feet.
> Wing areas are humongous.

** Nonsense.

Lift is a mostly function of a wing's "angle of attack" and aerofoil shape.
Passenger jets have small wing areas, with lots of movable devices fitted on the leading and trailing edges to increase lift at low speeds for take offs and landings.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Transaero_b737-400_planform_ei-cxk_arp.jpg




..... Phil

[John Doe]

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman)

Bozo the Clown...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f10b:: with SMTP id i11mr4848458qvl.67.1631424844286; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 22:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:bc0f:: with SMTP id i15mr6832037ybh.233.1631424844009; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 22:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 22:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <87917a13-8165-4ddb...@googlegroups.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=14.202.161.14; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 14.202.161.14
> References: <074e86c1-fb6d-40c5...@googlegroups.com> <af4c2cfd-a498-4dc1...@googlegroups.com> <87917a13-8165-4ddb...@googlegroups.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <a27eae77-5524-4d23...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Another piece of blatant ignorance by SL0WMAN
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 05:34:04 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 63
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:644401

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4...@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1...@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is > CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorectly formatted USENET posting on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 15:27:39 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <shl69b$ma5$4...@dont-email.me>.

[Flyguy]

All aircraft have wing area necessary to generate the lift required for the load - the higher the load the larger the wing area, in general. In comparing aircraft we commonly talk about wing loading (lbs/ft^2 or kg/m^2). The most difficult flight regime for generating lift are low speeds. Most aircraft, but not all such as the SR-71, have a geometry altering trailing edge devices called flaps (and in larger aircraft leading edge devices called slats) to generate more lift at slow speeds, typically while taking off or landing. Accidents have happened after pilots did not extend flaps for takeoff or landing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPA_Flight_3142

[Flyguy]

And you made an "incorectly" spelled post. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

can take off and land without flaps and slats, but you'll of course have to know before hand and plan for
the extra speed and runway needed

[Phil Allison]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 6:10:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 11:30:36 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > ===============
> > >
> > > Aircraft designed for high altitude flight will generally have lots of wing area to reduce the
> > > requirement for excess velocity needed for lift a high altitude.
> > > Most of the modern airlines seem to be optimized for 500 knots at 35,000 feet.
> > > Wing areas are humongous.
> > ** Nonsense.
> >
> > Lift is a mostly function of a wing's "angle of attack" and aerofoil shape.
> > Passenger jets have small wing areas, with lots of movable devices fitted on the leading and trailing edges to increase lift at low speeds for take offs and landings.
> >
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Transaero_b737-400_planform_ei-cxk_arp.jpg
> >
> >
>

> All aircraft have wing area necessary to generate the lift required for the load - the higher the load the larger the wing area, in general.

** Nonsense.

Look at the Lockheed F104 Starfighter for an extreme example of the direct opposite.
Often said to "... have no visible means of support " .

All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.


....... Phil

[Flyguy]

Thanks, coming from a TOTAL IDIOT! The F-104 had these wonderful flying characteristics:

"The F-104 series all had a very high wing loading (made even higher when carrying external stores). During the early stall tests, the aircraft demonstrated the tendency to suddenly "pitch up" once it reached an angle of attack of approximately 15 degrees. This "pitch up" would result in a rapid increase in angle of attack to approximately 60 degrees, accompanied by lateral and directional oscillation, and followed by sudden uncontrolled yaw and roll. At this point the aircraft would be essentially tumbling, descending at a rate of 12,000–15,000 feet per minute (3,700–4,600 m/min)."

A 15 degree angle of attack is NOT MUCH as viewed from the cockpit. And that wasn't all:

'Another serious design issue that the aircraft encountered was T-tail flutter; Dick Heppe, who served as the initial project aerodynamics engineer for the F-104 program, recalled that "without question, the single most difficult technical challenge encountered in the XF-104 and F-104A development programs was the catastrophic flutter problem of the unique T-tailed empennage configuration."'

The F-104 was not judged well by pilots highly qualified to do so:

"Erich Hartmann, the world's top-scoring fighter ace, commanded one of West Germany's first post-war jet fighter-equipped wings[148] and deemed the F-104 to be an unsafe aircraft with poor handling characteristics for aerial combat. In Navy service it lacked the safety margin of a twin engine design such as the Blackburn Buccaneer. To the dismay of his superiors, Hartmann judged the fighter unfit for Luftwaffe use even before its introduction."

And that judgment was directly reflected in its safety record:

"The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news in the mid-1960s, especially in West Germany.[153] West Germany initially ordered 309 F-104s, and over time another 607.[154] Deliveries of Lockheed-built aircraft started in August 1961, and domestically produced airframes began to roll off the assembly lines in December.[31] That same month, the first of an eventual total of 292 West German F-104s had crashed."

So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR" you better do your FUCKING RESEARCH, IDIOT!

[Phil Allison]

Flyguy wrote:
===========
> > > > >
> > > > > Aircraft designed for high altitude flight will generally have lots of wing area to reduce the
> > > > > requirement for excess velocity needed for lift a high altitude.
> > > > > Most of the modern airlines seem to be optimized for 500 knots at 35,000 feet.
> > > > > Wing areas are humongous.
> > > > ** Nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > Lift is a mostly function of a wing's "angle of attack" and aerofoil shape.
> > > > Passenger jets have small wing areas, with lots of movable devices fitted on the leading and trailing edges to increase lift at low speeds for take offs and landings.
> > > >
> > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Transaero_b737-400_planform_ei-cxk_arp.jpg
> > > >
> > >
> > > All aircraft have wing area necessary to generate the lift required for the load
> > - the higher the load the larger the wing area, in general.
>
> > ** Nonsense.
> >
> > Look at the Lockheed F104 Starfighter for an extreme example of the direct opposite.
> > Often said to "... have no visible means of support " .
> >
> > All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.

** I know ALL about the F104 - so you wasted your time Googling.

That it has a high "wing loading" and a tiny wing area PROVES my point - fuckwit !!!!

> So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator

** All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.

Plus a very low IQ.

===============================================================




...... Phil

[Flyguy]

Actually there are other fighters and airliners that have HIGHER wing loading than the F-104 and they are perfectly flyable (i.e. the A380). So, it wasn't just the high wing loading that made the F-104 a "widow maker," dolt.

And, YES, they DO design aircraft with wing loading in mind, my original point.

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:50:15 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 6:10:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 11:30:36 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR" you better do your FUCKING RESEARCH, IDIOT!

Every last word of that was copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page. The newspaper reports in the UK at the time tended to mention that the German Air Forces called the F-104G "the widow maker", which doesn't seem to have got into the Wikipedia page, nor whatever it is that Flyguy uses instead of a brain.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Allison]

Flyguy is a 110% fucking IDIOT

========================

> > >
> > > > All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
>
> > ** I know ALL about the F104 - so you wasted your time Googling.
> >
> > That it has a high "wing loading" and a tiny wing area PROVES my point - fuckwit !!!!
> > > So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator
>>
> > ** All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> >
> > Plus a very low IQ.
> >
> > ===============================================================
>>

> Actually there are other fighters and airliners that have ...

** Nothing to do with the issue.

Googling irrelevances and flying by the seat of your torn & tattered pants is all you can ever manage.

Tell me -

does the name " Flyguy " refer to you pulling the wings off flies ?



...... Phil

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:16:56 PM UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Flyguy is a 110% fucking IDIOT
>
> ========================
> > > >
> > > > > All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> >
> > > ** I know ALL about the F104 - so you wasted your time Googling.
> > >
> > > That it has a high "wing loading" and a tiny wing area PROVES my point - fuckwit !!!!
> > > > So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator
> >>
> > > ** All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> > >
> > > Plus a very low IQ.
> >>

> > Actually there are other fighters and airliners that have ...
>
> ** Nothing to do with the issue.
>
> Googling irrelevances and flying by the seat of your torn & tattered pants is all you can ever manage.
>
> Tell me -
>
> does the name " Flyguy " refer to you pulling the wings off flies ?

He has claimed to be a private pilot, and to own a plane. It's difficult to believe that he is still allowed to fly, granting the cognitive deficit that he exhibits here. He denies that he is a liar, but his grasp of reality is clearly defective, and he may be misleading us on this point, as he tries to do on so many others.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Allison]

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
=================

>
> > does the name " Flyguy " refer to you pulling the wings off flies ?
>>
> He has claimed to be a private pilot, and to own a plane.

** This him ?

https://www.gadgetking.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Cri-Cri-Worlds-Smallest-Twin-Engine-Plane-6.jpg



..... Phil

[Flyguy]

LOL! Your obsession with animal cruelty says a lot about you, and it isn't pleasant.

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, it is difficult to believe that you aren't in a mental institution given your delusions. I can PROVE what I claim - can you PROVE that you are sane?

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:24:26 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:16:56 PM UTC+10, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Flyguy is a 110% fucking IDIOT
> > >
> > > ========================
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> > > >
> > > > > ** I know ALL about the F104 - so you wasted your time Googling.
> > > > >
> > > > > That it has a high "wing loading" and a tiny wing area PROVES my point - fuckwit !!!!
> > > > > > So, before the next time you call me a "serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator
> > > >>
> > > > > ** All you are is a serial context shifter, bullshitting obfuscator and a damn LIAR.
> > > > >
> > > > > Plus a very low IQ.
> > > >>
> > > > Actually there are other fighters and airliners that have ...
> > >
> > > ** Nothing to do with the issue.
> > >
> > > Googling irrelevances and flying by the seat of your torn & tattered pants is all you can ever manage.
> > >
> > > Tell me -
> > >
> > > does the name " Flyguy " refer to you pulling the wings off flies?
> >
> > He has claimed to be a private pilot, and to own a plane. It's difficult to believe that he is still allowed to fly, granting the cognitive deficit that he exhibits here. He denies that he is a liar, but his grasp of reality is clearly defective, and he may be misleading us on this point, as he tries to do on so many others.
>

> Hey Sloman, it is difficult to believe that you aren't in a mental institution given your delusions. I can PROVE what I claim - can you PROVE that you are sane?

An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license, which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.

If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.

About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic. Since most people never get crazy enough to need that protection most of us can't manage that.

The best I can do is this

https://site.ieee.org/nsw/committe/

If I was nuts, the rest of the committee probably wouldn't trust me to look after the section's bank accounts. There's an argument that suggests that I'm nuts to do the job for nothing, but even low level altruism is a bit crazy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, you CAN'T prove that you are SANE but I CAN prove that I am a pilot. I AM NOT going to release personal identifying information here, especially since a lunatic on this board has THREATENED TO KILL ME. But I would to a mutually agreeable third party, but there would have to be a substantial wager involved to justify the bother (and I am not talking about a few bucks!).

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

FlyTard <dead2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:74d05716-4b5a-4f28...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 9:53:27 PM UTC-7,
> bill....@ieee.org wrote:

>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:24:26 PM UTC+10, FlyTard wrote:
>> > On Sunday, September 12, 2021 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-7,
>> > bill....@ieee.org wr
> ote:
>> > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 12:16:56 PM UTC+10,
>> > > palli...@gmail.c
> om wrote:

>> > > > FlyTard is a 110% fucking IDIOT

>> > > > does the name " FlyTard " refer to you pulling the wings off

>> > > > flies?
>
>> > >
>> > > He has claimed to be a private pilot, and to own a plane.
>> > > It's diffic
> ult to believe that he is still allowed to fly, granting the
> cognitive deficit that he exhibits here. He denies that he is a
> liar, but his grasp of reality is clearly defective, and he may be
> misleading us on this point, as he tries to do on so many others.
>> >
>> > Hey Sloman, it is difficult to believe that you aren't in a
>> > mental inst
> itution given your delusions. I can PROVE what I claim - can you
> PROVE that you are sane?
>>
>> An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current
>> pilot's
> license, which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove
> that it is his real name.
>>

>> If FlyTard had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the

>> problem there.
>
>>
>> About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is
>> to produc
> e a document that shows that they are no longer under court
> protection as a certified lunatic. Since most people never get
> crazy enough to need that protection most of us can't manage that.
>>
>> The best I can do is this
>>
>> https://site.ieee.org/nsw/committe/
>>
>> If I was nuts, the rest of the committee probably wouldn't trust
>> me to lo
> ok after the section's bank accounts. There's an argument that
> suggests that I'm nuts to do the job for nothing, but even low
> level altruism is a bit crazy.
>>
>> --
>> SL0WMAN, Sydney
>
> Hey SL0WMAN, you CAN'T prove that you are SANE but I CAN prove
> that I am a pilot. I AM NOT going to release personal identifying
> information here, especially since a lunatic on this board has
> THREATENED TO KILL ME. But I would to a mutually agreeable third
> party, but there would have to be a substantial wager involved to
> justify the bother (and I am not talking about a few bucks!).
>
>

Nobody "threatened to kill" you, pussified punk.

I merely laid out for you how it would happen. Never once
threatened to make it happen.

Run, pussy, run.

[Anthony William Sloman]

> Hey Sloman, you CAN'T prove that you are SANE but I CAN prove that I am a pilot.

I just provided reasonable evidence that I am sane, but you didn't seem to be able to process the information.

> I AM NOT going to release personal identifying information here, especially since a lunatic on this board has THREATENED TO KILL ME. But I would to a mutually agreeable third party, but there would have to be a substantial wager involved to justify the bother (and I am not talking about a few bucks!).

I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not - I just need for you to realise that you - as anonymous troll - can't prove it. You might be able to get somebody who really is a pilot to take on the opprobrium of pretending to be you, but that is the best you can manage. You don't seem to be bright enough to realise this, which is what we'd expect from all the other nonsense you post.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Allison]

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
-----------------------------------

> > >
> > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > >
> > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > >
> > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.

** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:

" I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".

> I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not

** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.

Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.


.... Phil

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

West Germany must have used the F-104 differently because they seemed to have many more crashes than other countries using them.

what the point in comparing a Blackburn Buccaneer with a Starfighter? its half the weight and twice as fast and super sonic

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, you say you don't care but you keep on posting about it - YOU'RE LYING AGAIN! I said how I would prove it to you, do you want to go down that path OR NOT?

[Flyguy]

Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO. But, then again, that's not SAYING MUCH!

[Anthony William Sloman]

> West Germany must have used the F-104 differently because they seemed to have many more crashes than other countries using them.

Germany did get it's own version of the F-104 - the F-104G (where the G stood for German). Most air forces lost lot of them to crashes, but "The best accident rate was achieved by the Spanish Air Force, which ended its Starfighter era with a perfect safety record. The Ejército del Aire lost none of its 18 F-104Gs and 3 TF-104Gs over a total of seven years and 17,500 flight hours". Military fighter planes do crash quite often, and - even in peace-time - do tend to do dangerous things.

When I was working backstage in Luton (hobby - not for money) around 1975 an ex-Lighting pilot told me how he flown one of them across the Atlantic in a small squadron, with a lot in-flight refueling episodes along the way. He'd found it a bit hair-raising.

The Lightning was a point interceptor and could climb straight up - vertically - for couple of miles before the atmosphere got too thin for the engines deliver enough thrust to sustain a vertical climb. It had a very limited range

They tended not to go supersonic until they'd got to the tropopause (around 11,000 metres - 36,000 feet). One intercepted a U-2 at 60,000 feet.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Steve Wilson]

The F-104 paid for the small wing area with an exceptionally high landing
speed, in excess of 170 knots, and high stall speed. Both are dangerous.
The small wing area also limited maneuverability, essential in dogfights.

Quote:

The Starfighter featured a radical design, with thin, stubby wings attached
farther back on the fuselage than most contemporary aircraft. The wing
provided excellent supersonic and high-speed, low-altitude performance, but
also poor turning capability and high landing speeds.

The Starfighter eventually flew with fifteen air forces but its poor safety
record, especially in Luftwaffe service, brought it substantial criticism.
The Germans lost 292 of 916 aircraft and 116 pilots from 1961 to 1989, its
high accident rate earning it the nickname "the Widowmaker" from the German
public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

Phil, there is no need to reply, or to try to insult me. I won't see it.

I have had you plonked for many years, for obvious reasons.




--
The best ideas occur in the theta state. - sw

[Anthony William Sloman]

> Hey Sloman, you say you don't care but you keep on posting about it - YOU'RE LYING AGAIN! I said how I would prove it to you, do you want to go down that path OR NOT?

I don't care whether you are a pilot, but I do enjoy encouraging you to remind us - once again - just how remarkably stupid you are,

And you've rewarded me with another example of your capacity to miss the point. Thank you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > -----------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.
> > ** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:
> >
> > " I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".
> > > I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not
> > ** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
> > Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.
> >
> > Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.
>

> Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO. But, then again, that's not SAYING MUCH!

Flyguy does have inflated ideas about his judgement. He couldn't find his bottom with both hands, but he thinks he can judge other peoples competence from whether or not they agree with his silly ideas. Not a reliable criterion, but when you are as silly as he is, you aren't equipped to do better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Brent Locher]

On Saturday, September 11, 2021 at 2:33:38 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
> He stated this piece of brilliance (besides not being able to spell):
>
> "This is an over-simplication, and mostly wrong. There's an advantage in flying at higher altitude. You do have to fly faster to generate enough lift to keep you up there, but you don't generate any more drag, so you get where you want to go with less expenditure of energy. Variable pitch propellers help you do this."
>
> So, flying faster DOESN'T generate more drag. Boy, will THAT be a revelation to aircraft designers! NEWS FLASH: flying faster DOES generate more drag! Just take the case of the fastest production aircraft ever built, the SR-71. It generated so much drag that the fuselage heated to 600F and required special cooling to get rid of the heat. This is called "parasitic drag" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag). But SL0WMAN is an idiot, so I don't expect him to understand this.

You do know that he lives for these kind of posts --right?

[Anthony William Sloman]

I certainly had fun with that one. Flyguy had missed the point massively, as several other people had pointed out. One of his better exhibitions of mindless stupidity.

And he keeps on rewarding me with more!

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Allison]

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > -----------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.
> > ** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:
> >
> > " I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".
> > > I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not
> > ** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
> > Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.
> >
> > Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.
> >
>

> Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO.
>

** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.

Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.
Mostly they know SFA about it.

What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.

I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
Like you.


...... Phil

[Flyguy]

This report addresses the issue in detail:
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=jate
The F-104 had a higher accident rate than its cohorts, and the USAF accident rate was even higher than the Germans. The F-104 had a somewhat unreliable engine (which caused 41% of the accidents). It was a demanding aircraft that punished any pilot mistakes quickly and severely.

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, there you go AGAIN, libeling me without any evidence or facts. And you are unapologetically plagiarizing my words ("SL0WMAN couldn't find his asshole with both hands"), a sign of a mediocre mind. Let's be clear: I AM a licensed pilot with decades and thousands of hours of experience and you are an idiot with NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how to operate an aircraft. Those are the simple FACTS. I also take it that you DIDN'T contact CASA as I recommended.

[Flyguy]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > -----------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > > > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > > > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.
> > > ** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:
> > >
> > > " I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".
> > > > I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not
> > > ** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
> > > Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.
> > >
> > > Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.
> > >
> >
> > Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO.
> >
> ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
>
> Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.

LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!! That is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, you BRAIN DEAD IDIOT!!! That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!

> What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.

Do you have any FUCKING IDEA how many licensed pilots there are in the world and what PERCENTAGE of those pilots that have "killed themselves?" Obviously NOT, you diminished mentality fool!!!!

>
> I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> Like you.

Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

"somewhat unreliable engine " that had twice the power of what came before it and more than 17000 have been build

[Phil Allison]

Flyguy is Hysterically & Unintentionally Funny.

=======================================

> >
> > ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
> >
> > Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.

> LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!!

** It is in fact a very well informed statement.

> That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!

** ROTFLMAO wot a hoot,

>What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size > of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.

> > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > Like you.

> Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!

** I really do, just my bad luck I guess.

But take heart - YOU are a far bigger WANKER than any of them.



...... Phil

[Flyguy]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:51:53 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Flyguy is Hysterically & Unintentionally Funny.
>
> =======================================
> > >
> > > ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
> > >
> > > Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.
>
> > LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!!
> ** It is in fact a very well informed statement.

No, it is the DUMBEST STATEMENT of the decade, fool.

> > That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!
> ** ROTFLMAO wot a hoot,

Yeah, you realized exactly how DUMB what you said is.

> >What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size > of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.
> > > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > > Like you.
>
> > Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!
> ** I really do, just my bad luck I guess.

No, you don't.

>
> But take heart - YOU are a far bigger WANKER than any of them.

Hardly - you are just BLOWING SMOKE! You can't even name a SINGLE pilot you know, let alone one that KILLED THEMSELVES.

[Phil Allison]

Flyguy is Hysterically & Unintentionally Funny.

====================================

** Now for some more belly laughs...

> > =======================================
> > > >
> > > > ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
> > > >
> > > > Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.
> >
> > > LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!!
>>
> > ** It is in fact a very well informed statement.
>>
> No, it is the DUMBEST STATEMENT of the decade, fool.

** It's an absolute fact - you narcissistic MORON !!.

> > > That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!
>
> > ** ROTFLMAO wot a hoot,

> > >What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others,
> > >their HEADS swell up to the size > of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.
>>
> > > > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > > > Like you.
> >
> > > Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!
> > ** I really do, just my bad luck I guess.
>
> No, you don't.

** Guy living next door for 3 years, David Henderson.
Ex RAAF ground crew.
Licensed to fly single and twin engine Pipers.
Talked about it all the time.
Was nearly killed twice, that I know of.

1. Flying over Bass Straight at night with a load of fresh seafood, DH became
disoriented seeing the moon reflected on the surface of the sea.
Lost it & nearly crashed into the water.

2. Invited me to accompany him and his lovey ladyfriend ( Pauline) on a short, daylight trip in a twin.
I politely declined. The destination was Sydney Airport.
When I saw Pauline a few hours later, she looked white as a ghost and would not speak.
Eventually she told me what had a happened.
On approach to Sydney, DH flew straight into the wake of a big jet while at low altitude.
The twin became inverted and started to dive, she screamed her head off.

** Same address, different pilot, Italian gent who flew helicopters for the NSW police.
He drove a Lancia sedan. We chatted a lot.,
Nice enough guy - but all Italians & heli pilots are nuts.

** Friend and colleague Gary Dunn learned to fly a Cessna 172.
Strictly fair weather and in daylight, still yet to crash.

** Famous Aussie musician " Ian Moss " - I know him as a customer.
Rides a huge Indian motorbike and has learnt to fly a light single.
Crazy man.

** I met and chatted with an Australian Mosquito pilot, we used to make those here at Bankstown.
He spoke about firing the 4 x 20mm cannons at a target range in Queensland.
I also know a woman " Molly Cribb" who helped build Mosquitos during WW2.



....... Phil

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:38:10 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > -----------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An anonymous troll claims that he can prove that he has a current pilot's license,
> > > > > > > which would reveal his legal name. Then he has to prove that it is his real name.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Flyguy had a working brain he'd he'd be able to see the problem there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > About the only way that anybody can prove that they are sane is to produce
> > > > > > > a document that shows that they are no longer under court protection as a certified lunatic.
> > > > ** Or they can say as "Sheldon Cooper" regularly does:
> > > >
> > > > " I am NOT not crazy - my mother had me tested ".
> > > > > I couldn't care less whether you are a pilot or not
> > > > ** I believe he has a private licence to fly some tiny, POS plane for fun.
> > > > Millions do, I know a few. Most are total ratbags.
> > > >
> > > > Authorities have no concerns OR liability if such idiots kill themselves or others stupid enough to get aboard.
> > >
> > > Anybody that has a valid pilot's license knows FAR MORE about aviation, flying and aircraft than YOU DO.
> > >
> > ** ROTFL - that is sooooo fucking funny.
> >
> > Pilots have no reason to study "aviation" and rarely ever do.
>
> LOL! That is, possibly, the DUMBEST statement I have EVER READ!! That is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, you BRAIN DEAD IDIOT!!! That would be like saying an English major would have no reason to study ENGLISH!!!

English majors study English literature. Writers in training - would be journalist and writers - study English expression. Flyguy won't appreciate that there is a difference.

> > What often happens is, soon as they get a license that gives them the right to kill themselves and others, their HEADS swell up to the size of a planet and they walk around all day acting like they are flying a plane all the time.
>
> Do you have any FUCKING IDEA how many licensed pilots there are in the world and what PERCENTAGE of those pilots that have "killed themselves?" Obviously NOT, you diminished mentality fool!!!!

One of my undergraduate friends was an aviation freak who was studying engineering with the aim of becoming a flight engineer. He had a private pilot's license and was working on getting enough hours to qualify for the lowest level commercial license - freight only. He kept a scrap book of light aviation accidents. There were a lot of them.

> > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > Like you.
>
> Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!

Aviation is popular in Australia. None of my relatives took it up, but my brother-in-law spent his career as a nonflying RAAF officer, and took to hang-gliding after he retired.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

So, none of them killed themselves as you said.

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, I know a bunch of pilots who were also hang-glider pilots. I don't count that as being a pilot as there is no certification to be one. A non-flying RAAF officer is also know as a non-pilot.

[Phil Allison]

** Never said ANY such thing you ASININE FUCKING LIAR

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:13:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:04:43 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:38:10 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:

<snip>

> > > > I know quite a few GA and commercial pilots, all of them total wankers.
> > > > Like you.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I am SURE YOU DO!!!!!!
> >

> > Aviation is popular in Australia. None of my relatives took it up, but my brother-in-law spent his career as a non-flying RAAF officer, and took to hang-gliding after he retired.
>
> Hey Sloman, I know a bunch of pilots who were also hang-glider pilots. I don't count that as being a pilot as there is no certification to be one.

It's dangerous enough that you probably ought to certified as insane if you take it up.

> A non-flying RAAF officer is also known as a non-pilot.

Really? I would never have guessed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

Hey Phil, that is EXACTLY what the fuck you said, you turd!

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, what a SHOCK - you talk about pilots you know that are NON-PILOTS!

[Phil Allison]

Flyguy is Hysterically & Unintentionally Funny.

-=----------------------------------------------------------------------

> > > So, none of them killed themselves as you said.
>>
> > ** Never said ANY such thing you ASININE FUCKING LIAR
<<
> Hey Phil, that is EXACTLY what the fuck you said, you turd!

** Then you can easily re-post it, with context of course.
It's all actually on this page.

You POS ANENCEPHALIC !!!

[Anthony William Sloman]

> Hey Sloman, what a SHOCK - you talk about pilots you know that are NON-PILOTS!

Flyguy gets it wrong again. I did identify my brother-in-law as a non-pilot. Elsewhere I've identified the undergraduate friend who was a pilot, and who - even then - was certified for commercial flying - if for freight only. A female friend - now a professor - wasn't a pilot either, but both her parents were active in the Victorian Glider club.

Another friend had a step-son who flew helicopters - very well, but a bit too boldly - and eventually it killed him. "There are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots." Stupidity can be equally lethal.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Phil Allison]

Bill wrote:
>
> > Hey Sloman, what a SHOCK - you talk about pilots you know that are NON-PILOTS!
>
> Flyguy gets it wrong again. I did identify my brother-in-law as a non-pilot. Elsewhere I've identified the undergraduate friend who was a pilot, and who - even then - was certified for commercial flying - if for freight only. A female friend - now a professor - wasn't a pilot either, but both her parents were active in the Victorian Glider club.
>
> Another friend had a step-son who flew helicopters - very well, but a bit too boldly - and eventually it killed him.
>
> "There are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots." Stupidity can be equally lethal.
>

** Definition of a good pilot:

" One who has made the exact same number of take offs and landings "



...... Phil

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, you talk as if KNOWING a pilot somehow imparts some special insight, which, of course, it does not. And that there are airplane accidents isn't exactly insightful - the NTSB maintains a database of all US accidents and I am sure CASA does the same for Australia (who you STILL have contacted with your hair-brained idea).

[Phil Allison]

Fly on the Wall guy wrote:

====================

>
> Hey SL0WMAN, you talk as if KNOWING a pilot somehow imparts some special insight,
> which, of course, it does not.
>

** It kinda does, cost most folk can easily tell a grade A wanker when they meet one.

Exception being those who are wankers themselves.
All of whom have ZERO insight.


..... Phil

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:46:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:59:36 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:18:35 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:03:41 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:13:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:04:43 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:38:10 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:

<snip>

> > Flyguy gets it wrong again. I did identify my brother-in-law as a non-pilot. Elsewhere I've identified the undergraduate friend who was a pilot, and who - even then - was certified for commercial flying - if for freight only. A female friend - now a professor - wasn't a pilot either, but both her parents were active in the Victorian Glider club.
> >
> > Another friend had a step-son who flew helicopters - very well, but a bit too boldly - and eventually it killed him. "There are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old, bold pilots." Stupidity can be equally lethal.
>

> Hey Sloman, you talk as if KNOWING a pilot somehow imparts some special insight, which, of course, it does not.

That's what you decided to hear. What I was actually saying was that Phil Allison's claim to know a few pilots wasn't unrealistic, but that isn't what you wanted to hear, so you decided to understand it to mean something different, that happened to appeal to you more. You do make a habit of this.

> And that there are airplane accidents isn't exactly insightful - the NTSB maintains a database of all US accidents and I am sure CASA does the same for Australia (who you STILL haven't contacted with your hair-brained idea).

The hare-brained idea that I should contact them is all yours. You haven't spelled out what I am supposed to ask them - that kind of detail is beyond you - and I doubt if they would bother to answer the kind of hare-brained idea that you regularly manage to extract from the more or less rational conversations you make a habit of horning into.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, I am supposed to tell you WHAT TO ASK THEM? Are you FUCKING SERIOUS?? You have bloviated all over SED about your hair-brained idea - just start reading them your OWN FUCKING DERANGED POSTS, you FUCKING IDIOT!!!!

[Anthony William Sloman]

> Hey Sloman, I am supposed to tell you WHAT TO ASK THEM? Are you FUCKING SERIOUS?? You have bloviated all over SED about your hair-brained idea - just start reading them your OWN FUCKING DERANGED POSTS, you FUCKING IDIOT!!!!

Unfortunately you are the idiot here, and what you see as a hare-brained idea could be practically anything I've posted. I'm not going to try to reread my output from your deranged point of view, bearing in mind that your derangement does seem to be getting progressively worse. The moment when the guys with the strait-jacket show up to take you away can't be far off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, you KNOW which of the hair-brained ideas I am referring to, so I am not going to repeat it. You are a CONGENITAL LIAR, so EVERYTHING you say has no merit. You refuse to call CASA because you also know what their reaction will be.

[bitrex]

One of those classic "fighter" designs that has hardly any visibility
out the back, the Soviets were fans of that feature also

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:44:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:04:45 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:42:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:46:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:59:36 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:18:35 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:03:41 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:13:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:04:43 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:38:10 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:

<snip>


> > >

> > > Hey Sloman, I am supposed to tell you WHAT TO ASK THEM? Are you FUCKING SERIOUS?? You have bloviated all over SED about your hair-brained idea - just start reading them your OWN FUCKING DERANGED POSTS, you FUCKING IDIOT!!!!
> >
> > Unfortunately you are the idiot here, and what you see as a hare-brained idea could be practically anything I've posted. I'm not going to try to reread my output from your deranged point of view, bearing in mind that your derangement does seem to be getting progressively worse. The moment when the guys with the strait-jacket show up to take you away can't be far off.
>

> Hey Sloman, you KNOW which of the hair-brained ideas I am referring to, so I am not going to repeat it.

You seem to have persuaded yourself that this is true. I really am in a better position to tell you what I know than you are to tel me what I know - the fact that I'm not an idiot, while you are, may come into that but the main point is I do have better access to my data base than you do

> You are a CONGENITAL LIAR, so EVERYTHING you say has no merit.

You do like to make this claim, but you've made no attempt justify the claim, beyond protesting that you don't like what I've said about you.

As an anonymous troll, you can't prove that anything that I've said is actually wrong, and I'm at liberty to post my own speculations without any risk that you will be able to "prove" that your own lies have anything to do with objective reality.

> You refuse to call CASA because you also know what their reaction will be.

That's your hypothesis. I "refuse" to call the CASA because I can't be bothered to do the work that might let me work out whatever it is you think you want me to ask them. The obvious fact that the question is almost certainly going to be bat-shit crazy and their reaction would consequently be negative is one of the negative motivations involved, but not the crucial one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

LOL! Hey SL0WMAN, virtually EVERYTHING you have written about me is a LIE, and has been for years. The latest is that I don't hold a CCW permit, which is an ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD. And you say these lies w/o a SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Further proof of this is the very significant WAGER I offered you that you didn't even respond to: if you had the facts on your side you would snap up the offer in a HEART BEAT, but you don't because you KNOW you are a fucking liar.

You don't call CASA because you know what you are proposing is PURE BULLSHIT and that you will be exposed for the IDIOT you truly are.

You are such an IDIOT that you can't even SPELL YOUR OWN FUCKING NAME!

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 12:37:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:22:53 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:44:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:04:45 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:42:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:46:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:59:36 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:18:35 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:03:41 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:13:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:04:43 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:38:10 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Sloman, I am supposed to tell you WHAT TO ASK THEM? Are you FUCKING SERIOUS?? You have bloviated all over SED about your hair-brained idea - just start reading them your OWN FUCKING DERANGED POSTS, you FUCKING IDIOT!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately you are the idiot here, and what you see as a hare-brained idea could be practically anything I've posted. I'm not going to try to reread my output from your deranged point of view, bearing in mind that your derangement does seem to be getting progressively worse. The moment when the guys with the strait-jacket show up to take you away can't be far off.
> > >
> > > Hey Sloman, you KNOW which of the hair-brained ideas I am referring to, so I am not going to repeat it.
> >

> > You seem to have persuaded yourself that this is true. I really am in a better position to tell you what I know than you are to tel me what I know - the fact that I'm not an idiot, while you are, may come into that but the main point is I do have better access to my data base than you do .

> >
> > > You are a CONGENITAL LIAR, so EVERYTHING you say has no merit.
> >
> > You do like to make this claim, but you've made no attempt justify the claim, beyond protesting that you don't like what I've said about you.
> >
> > As an anonymous troll, you can't prove that anything that I've said is actually wrong, and I'm at liberty to post my own speculations without any risk that you will be able to "prove" that your own lies have anything to do with objective reality.
> >
> > > You refuse to call CASA because you also know what their reaction will be.
> >
> > That's your hypothesis. I "refuse" to call the CASA because I can't be bothered to do the work that might let me work out whatever it is you think you want me to ask them. The obvious fact that the question is almost certainly going to be bat-shit crazy and their reaction would consequently be negative is one of the negative motivations involved, but not the crucial one.
>

> LOL! Hey SL0WMAN, virtually EVERYTHING you have written about me is a LIE, and has been for years.

By which you mean that you don't like it.

> The latest is that I don't hold a CCW permit, which is an ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD.

What I actually said was that - based on your performance here - you clearly shouldn't have a concealed carry permit, and that this should be obvious enough to prevent you getting one. There are various hypotheses that could explain why you continue to claim that you have one - the likeliest is that you are too confused to realise that you haven't got one.

If you weren't an anonymous troll you night be able post evidence that might confirm your claim, but as an anonymous troll you can't.

> And you say these lies w/o a SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

The lunatic assertions that you make here strike me as convincing evidence that you shouldn't have one. If you are as obviously demented in real life as you are here, it's difficult to imagine that people you run into in person wouldn't notice.

> Further proof of this is the very significant WAGER I offered you that you didn't even respond to: if you had the facts on your side you would snap up the offer in a HEART BEAT, but you don't because you KNOW you are a fucking liar.

You think this because you are an idiot. Non-idiots don't take that kind of bet.

https://www.quotes.net/quote/17159

The odds are that your scheme to get "the Jack of Spades to jump out of the deck and squirt cider in my ear" would be one more of your idiotic failure, but why take the small risk that it might work?

> You don't call CASA because you know what you are proposing is PURE BULLSHIT and that you will be exposed for the IDIOT you truly are.

As you persistently claim, without adducing a shred of relevant evidence - it is obvious that you would like it to be true, but it is equally obvious that nobody sane would waste any time on indulging you.

> You are such an IDIOT that you can't even SPELL YOUR OWN FUCKING NAME!

And you are such an idiot that you think that an occasional typo is evidence that I can't spell my name, when I do get it right almost all the time.

You, on the other hand, keep on miss-spelling my name with a superfluous "w" which is one more of your persistent idiocies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, the authorities here DISAGREE with you, and this is after doing:
1. A full-day training course (multiple times)
2. Passing a written exam (multiple times)
3. Taking and passing a range proficiency exam (multiple times)
4. Passing an FBI background check (multiple times)
Now, WHO here is delusional, the US weapons training and justice system or YOU? The answer to any SANE person is: YOU!!

[Flyguy]

BTW, SL0WMAN, my nickname for you IS SL0WMAN, you FOOL, and it is HIGHLY APPROPRIATE (notice I spell it with a 0, not an O)!

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 3:12:56 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 10:09:08 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:09:43 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 12:37:39 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:22:53 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 2:44:04 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 12:04:45 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 3:42:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 3:46:02 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 10:59:36 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 3:18:35 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 9:03:41 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:13:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:04:43 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 10:38:10 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 1:51:32 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 4:43:34 AM UTC-7, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bill....@ieee.org wrote:

<snip>

> BTW, Sloman, my nickname for you IS Sloman, you FOOL, and it is HIGHLY APPROPRIATE (notice I spell it with a 0, not an O)!

Why should I care how you spell it? It is a puerile joke - the last time anybody made it was when I was in secondary school, so "puerile" is precisely correct.

The fact that you persist with it is just one more bit of evidence that you are suffering from rapidly progressing senile dementia.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e6463cc5-4c1f-493e-b5ef-
974045...@googlegroups.com:

> BTW,

From the hip, boy. Right between your eyes.

And all while you sport that surprised "I'm about to die and cannot
do anything about it" look on your face. Bwuahahahahaha!

All the training in the world could not save a dipshit retard like
you.

[Flyguy]

LOL! SL0WMAN HATES my nickname for him SO MUCH that he goes in an EDITS MY POSTING!!! What a CONCEITED JERK!!!! And he has the GALL to complain about my non-snipping!!!!! And his accusing me of "rapidly progressing senile dementia" is YET ANOTHER example of blatant CONGENITAL LYING on his part. If ANYBODY is suffering from "rapidly progressing senile dementia" it is he who CAN'T SPELL HIS OWN FUCKING NAME, namely SL0WMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:41b6b4e7-6db6-4fef-8a77-
e24a9f...@googlegroups.com:

> HATES my nickname for him

You are betond stupid.

He was called that decades ago and it did not bother him then either.

But you go on thinking you made it up and that Bill "hates it".

You are more stupid than he states. You are really, truly stupid,
boy.

From the hip, right between the eyes, chump.

[Flyguy]

Hey DecadedBrainMatter, if I am "beyond stupid" you must the most putrid pile of snail dung on earth. SL0WMAN EDITTED that name out of my POST, DUDE! Of course, you make specious threats of EXTREME VIOLENCE that you have NO CLUE how to commit, let alone have the BALLS to actually ATTEMPT to care out. I can just picture you lurking around my place with a blow gun trying to look inconspicuous as I watch you on my IR security cameras, flipping the safety off my AR-15. You realize that you never hear the shot the kills you, do you?

[Anthony William Sloman]

> LOL! Sloman HATES my nickname for him SO MUCH that he goes in and EDITS MY POSTING!!!

Flyguy goes in for a lot of self-promotion. I don't hate him - I merely despise the nonsense he posts. I edit out the repetitive nonsense - like his persistent miss-spelling and capitalisation of my name, and his equally repetitive and tedious attempts at variations on Decadent Linux User Numero Uno's nym.

The reader really doesn't need them.

> What a CONCEITED JERK!!!!

One of Flyguy's more persistent - and more fatuous - conceits is that he thinks that his addled point of view is worth publishing.

> And he has the GALL to complain about my non-snipping!!!!!

I wonder what he had in mind there. He may be admitting that he is also John Doe, whose posting habits are even more untidy, and which I have compiained about here, as have others..

> And his accusing me of "rapidly progressing senile dementia" is YET ANOTHER example of blatant CONGENITAL LYING on his part.

I'm sure that Flyguy likes to think that - even if he hasn't got much brain left to think with.

> If ANYBODY is suffering from "rapidly progressing senile dementia" it is he who CAN'T SPELL HIS OWN FUCKING NAME, namely Sloman!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flyguy is too stupid to realise that the occasional typo isn't evidence of any defect in spelling ability. I don't remind him of this elementary point from time to time, but he's much too far gone to be able to get the message.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 12:34:37 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 6:31:27 PM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:41b6b4e7-6db6-4fef-8a77-
> > e24a9f...@googlegroups.com:
> > > HATES my nickname for him
> > You are betond stupid.
> >
> > He was called that decades ago and it did not bother him then either.
> >
> > But you go on thinking you made it up and that Bill "hates it".
> >
> > You are more stupid than he states. You are really, truly stupid,
> > boy.
> >
> > From the hip, right between the eyes, chump.

> Hey Decadent Linux User Numero Uno, if I am "beyond stupid" you must the most putrid pile of snail dung on earth.

Flyguy can't do joined up logic.

> Sloman editted that name out of my post, dud! Of course, you make specious threats of EXTREME VIOLENCE that you have NO CLUE how to commit, let alone have the BALLS to actually ATTEMPT to carry out.

Since Flyguy is an anonymous troll, any threat of violence against him is merely pro forma. He is skulking behind his anonymity, desperately hoping that nobody has the skills to worked out where he is actually posting from. I believe that there are ways of making that difficult, but an idiot like Flyguy would probably screw them up, even if he had the wit to try

> I can just picture you lurking around my place with a blow gun trying to look inconspicuous as I watch you on my IR security cameras, flipping the safety off my AR-15. You realize that you never hear the shot the kills you, do you?

That does depend on how quickly it kills you. Granting the gap between Flyguy's evaluation of his intellectual skills and his intellectual performance, his marksmanship is unlikely to be as impressive as he tries to claim, and he'd be more likely to shoot himself in the foot than he would be to hit any part of the person he thought that he was aiming at.

Giving a concealed carry permit to a klutz like him would be very irresponsible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Flyguy]

> SL0WMAN, Sydney

Hey SL0WMAN, you basically PLEAD GUILTY to all of the above, but don't you realize that people of superior intelligence (which you CLAIM to be) DON'T MAKE DUMB TYPOS! And you make PLENTY! In your last rant you couldn't spell "compiained" for example.

I DON'T "misspell" your name, SL0WMAN, that IS my name for you, and VERY APPROPRIATE!

Your overrated "intelligence" is more than offset by your CONGENITAL LYING - smart people don't have to lie; their superior intelligence is FAR MORE compelling and convincing. Your resorting to blatant lying exposes your defective "intelligence."

[Flyguy]

<snip SL0WMAN's bullshit>

> That does depend on how quickly it kills you. Granting the gap between Flyguy's evaluation of his intellectual skills and his intellectual performance, his marksmanship is unlikely to be as impressive as he tries to claim, and he'd be more likely to shoot himself in the foot than he would be to hit any part of the person he thought that he was aiming at.

Why don't you join DecadedBrainMatter and find out?

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7d8e8bd3-2190-4839...@googlegroups.com:

You are as retarded as it gets, twerp. I would not go near your
place until after you got your third eye, and it would take place
nowhere near your pathetic IR cameras. Or your pathetic safey lever.

Fuck... A dork like you deserves the kind of death a Polonium
pellet would produce. Die in agony, motherfucker. Then I'll visit
your place and have my way with it, and then burn the motherfucker to
the ground or even blow it up as it burns. So much for your IR
cameras.

I'd John Wick your lame ass, punk.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f2642fa0-8dd1-45a3...@googlegroups.com:

Well, if you are implying that you are "a person of superior
intelligence" then why is everything you say so stupid?
Even your claim of not ever making typos is lame an untrue.
Even if you proofread and correct them, you still made them.

> And you make PLENTY!

I would bet that you are way farther over on the left side of the
intelligence bell curve and that Bill is on the crest or a bit
farther over the right side of it than many here.

But you... you are pretty far down the left side of the slope.

Oh and I know that whole thing just went way over your head so
there will be no valid response from you. You'll just wuss out like
most of your thread branches.

> In your
> last rant you couldn't spell "compiained" for example.

Folks in Usenet type and send. It really is not needed to
proofread everything, and if your were in the dark about what he
meant to write or say, then you really need to go find a kids
newsgroup to roam in, because you are way to "superior" for this
group... yeah, right. Bwuahahahahaahaha!

> I DON'T "misspell" your name, SL0WMAN, that IS my name for you,
> and VERY APPROPRIATE!

There is no such word as decaded but you use it every time you
respond to me as you also morph my nym in your responses.

Maybe you were shooting for decayed. But hey, how can we know what
a decayed brain like yours is thinking?

> Your overrated "intelligence"

I never heard anyoe here rating Bill's intelligence. I hear you
and allison and a couple others insulting it pretty often.

> is more than offset by your
> CONGENITAL LYING

Yet another thing that does not even exist except in the mind of
you "superior" fucktards.

> - smart people don't have to lie;

Then that 100% rules you out of the class.

> their superior
> intelligence is FAR MORE compelling and convincing.

Bwuahahahahaahaha! See above, putz.

> Your resorting
> to blatant lying exposes your defective "intelligence."

Cite one of his lies. Come on, boy... you can do it.
Fucking Trumpanzee Usenet twerp.

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:a837d1cf-9abc-4bb0...@googlegroups.com:

Still haven't posted that oh so protected address yet, chump.

I would so enjoy gathering up your collection and taking my picks
from them. Wall safe? No problem, just drag the whole thing out of
the wall take it and open it later elswhere.

Yeah... I'd buy Bill a flight up here and we'd plan it out and
you'd be toast, boy. THAT is how "superior" we *could* be.

But only "superior" fucktards like you, who has a collection of
guns and brags about training would harm others.

You are damn lucky that my intent doesn't match your deservance.
Because I do have the skills and you'd probably already be dead,
because I have been sick of your putrid shit spew form day one, chump
motherfucker.

[Flyguy]

Hey DecadedBrainMatter, do you ACTUALLY think that I am going to make it easy for you, fucking retard? Oh, that's right - you DON'T THINK! Come play in my backyard with your make believe weapons - you will find out what REAL weapons (and I have a number to chose from) in the hand of a skilled person do! The truth is that you are ALL BLOW AND NO GO!

Tip: SL0WMAN is far too much of a wimp to follow you to the bathroom, let alone on a kill mission (just more of your delusion).

[Anthony William Sloman]

> > I wonder what he had in mind there. He may be admitting that he is also John Doe, whose posting habits are even more untidy, and which I have complained about here, as have others..

> >
> > > And his accusing me of "rapidly progressing senile dementia" is YET ANOTHER example of blatant CONGENITAL LYING on his part.
> >
> > I'm sure that Flyguy likes to think that - even if he hasn't got much brain left to think with.
> >
> > > If ANYBODY is suffering from "rapidly progressing senile dementia" it is he who CAN'T SPELL HIS OWN FUCKING NAME, namely Sloman!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Flyguy is too stupid to realise that the occasional typo isn't evidence of any defect in spelling ability. I don't remind him of this elementary point from time to time, but he's much too far gone to be able to get the message.
>

> Hey Sloman, you basically PLEAD GUILTY to all of the above,

That may be Flyguy's take on the situation - he really is an idiot.

> but don't you realize that people of superior intelligence (which you CLAIM to be) DON'T MAKE DUMB TYPOS!

Really? I wonder what makes Flyguy think that? Everybody makes errors of action and some make more than others, but the frequency doesn't seem to correlate with any popular measure of intelligence (not any of them mean too much either). Flyguy is stupid enough to think that its worth claiming something different, but that's just more evidence of his stupidity.

> And you make PLENTY! In your last rant you couldn't spell "complained" for example.

So I did. Big deal.

> I DON'T "misspell" your name, SL0WMAN, that IS my name for you, and VERY APPROPRIATE!

Who cares what you think. It isn't as if you can think to any useful purpose. I've got my name as the inventor on a couple of patents, and since I'm not an anonymous troll I could even post links to them - and have done so here. I wouldn't waste the effort on you.

> Your overrated "intelligence" is more than offset by your CONGENITAL LYING - smart people don't have to lie; their superior intelligence is FAR MORE compelling and convincing. Your resorting to blatant lying exposes your defective "intelligence."

Right. Your "superior intelligence" lets you post all kinds of nonsense, but doesn't seem up to processing the voluminous evidence that demonstrates that it is nonsense - you prefer to call it "lies" without going to the trouble of digging up any counter-evidence (which doesn't happen to exist).

Your idea of "compelling and convincing'" argument actually looks exactly like compulsive reiteration of whatever stupid idea you've got stuck in your head.

You've got to be spectacularly stupid to confuse the two, but you really are spectacularly stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 2:27:16 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> <snip SL0WMAN's bullshit>
> > That does depend on how quickly it kills you. Granting the gap between Flyguy's evaluation of his intellectual skills and his intellectual performance, his marksmanship is unlikely to be as impressive as he tries to claim, and he'd be more likely to shoot himself in the foot than he would be to hit any part of the person he thought that he was aiming at.

> Why don't you join Decadent Linux User Numero Uno and find out?

I'm in Australia, and I'd need to apply for special permission to leave the country at the moment. "Pest control" probably wouldn't hack it. When we get more of the population vaccinated overseas travel is expected to become accessible to the fully vaccinated - which I am.

And you do claim to be human. Establishing that you are actually dangerous vermin would take a lot of effort, and might not work - the United States is remarkably tolerant of creeps like you. They even elected Donald Trump as president.

And why should I bother? Let the Americans deal with their own creeps.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[DecadentLinux...@decadence.org]

Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b26fd805-3485-45c2-b6b9-
7f79c6...@googlegroups.com:

> in the hand of a skilled person do!

The "superior" one that doesn't make typos, right?

hands too

Yeah, right. All you would collect is my Lead and I would collect
whatever I choose to collect that your carcass owned at one time.