🚀 go-pugleaf

In chi.general Fabrikant <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote:

Your posts are the longest most boring garbage I've ever come across on usenet.


> I have never seen a human being honestly saying that he was incompetent
> and failed.  Usually, this person claims to be "not perfect", thus
> creating impression that he is very good, just a little bit short of
> perfection.  Here are some other examples.
> 
> Several years ago, a pilot ignored gauges telling him that something
> was wrong with fuel supply to the left motor.  He failed to notice that
> his left wing was leaking fuel into the ocean.  Instead of shutting up
> his left motor, he switched the pump and started pumping fuel from
> right wing to the left motor, thus speeding up loss of fuel.  Soon he
> had no fuel at all.  Then he managed to land on the island and was
> hailed as a hero, who saved the lives of his passengers. In reality, he
> was the one, whose incompetence placed the passengers lives in danger
> in the first place.  Of course, the defective plane should not have
> been allowed to fly.
> 
> Just recently, Air France pilot has overshot the runway, skidded into a
> ravine and caught fire.  If you think, this is a lousy failure, think
> again.  The crew was hailed as heroes for saving life of passengers.
> In reality, the pilot was the one, who endangered their lives in the
> first place.  If the weather was too bad, go to Montreal and land
> there.  In addition, we learned that out of 8 exits, 4 did not open;
> out of the 4 open exits, 2 had slides not working.
> 
> NASA spent over a $1 BILLION to fix the problem of foam chunks falling
> from the fuel tank during launch.  During the last launch, a chunk of
> foam still fell off the tank, NASA has grounded all future shuttle
> flights.  Do you think, they would honestly say: "The last events
> proved us to be totally incompetent"?  On the contrary, the art of
> declaring any failure to be a success was switched in full gear.
> 
> I heard NASA representative saying proudly that NASA people are doing
> IMPOSSIBLE tasks every day.  It is sad that the reporter did not have
> guts to tell this representative: "Fixing foam does not fall into the
> category of things 'impossible', it does not even fall into the
> category of 'difficult'.  It seems like $1 million is too much to fix
> it.  You wasted $1 BILLION and still did not fix it.  Should not your
> top people apologize and resign in disgrace?"
> 
> When astronauts arrived at the space station, they discovered that some
> filling was sticking out between tiles.  Again, instead of admitting
> that someone did not do his job of fixing the filling, NASA declared
> the event to be a smashing success: first in the world repairs to the
> shuttle.
> 
> During the past twenty years, NASA had 14 people killed in totally
> preventable accidents.  During the same time, Russians had not killed
> anyone.  Here is a suggestion: for the $1 BILLION wasted, NASA could
> have hired Russians to transport its crews fourth and back at least 10
> times.
> 
> Fabrikant
> 

presence@MUNGEpanix.com (Cydrome Leader) wrote in
news:denfro$ftn$1@reader2.panix.com: 

> In chi.general Fabrikant <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Your posts are the longest most boring garbage I've ever come
> across on usenet. 

So of course you have to re-post it in its entirety so that you can add 
your one-line comment.

Good luck.

-- 
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message 
news:denfro$ftn$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In chi.general Fabrikant <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Your posts are the longest most boring garbage I've ever come across on 
> usenet.
>

learn to trim ... 

Cydrome Leader wrote:
> In chi.general Fabrikant <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Your posts are the longest most boring garbage I've ever come across on usenet.

No, that title belongs to Defender of Enormous Manhood.

In chi.general Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> presence@MUNGEpanix.com (Cydrome Leader) wrote in
> news:denfro$ftn$1@reader2.panix.com: 
> 
>> In chi.general Fabrikant <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Your posts are the longest most boring garbage I've ever come
>> across on usenet. 
> 
> So of course you have to re-post it in its entirety so that you can add 
> your one-line comment.
> 
> Good luck.

You don't have to cry about it.

In chi.general Nut Cracker <nutcracker@internationalhacker.org> wrote:
> 
> "Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message 
> news:denfro$ftn$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In chi.general Fabrikant <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Your posts are the longest most boring garbage I've ever come across on 
>> usenet.
>>
> 
> learn to trim ... 

So what's the extra message hidden in the elipses you added?

I looked at the title and I thought you might be talking about Vietnam,
and an exit strategy from Iraq.

"Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1125062995.416507.146420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have never seen a human being honestly saying that he was incompetent
> and failed.  Usually, this person claims to be "not perfect", thus
> creating impression that he is very good, just a little bit short of
> perfection.  Here are some other examples.

Well convict, I am not sure you have any credibility when talking about 
human beings.
Nobody is perfect. People make mistakes. Things go un-noticed. Focus is not 
always where it should be.
After all people are not flawless machines. People suffer from stupidity and 
idiocy. And even the brightest is
just as susceptiable to a bout as a fool. So let's try and preface our 
premise on known facts, rather than a very narrow view designed to give 
structure to the idiocy you are about you spew out!

> Several years ago, a pilot ignored gauges telling him that something
> was wrong with fuel supply to the left motor.  He failed to notice that
> his left wing was leaking fuel into the ocean.  Instead of shutting up
> his left motor, he switched the pump and started pumping fuel from
> right wing to the left motor, thus speeding up loss of fuel.  Soon he
> had no fuel at all.  Then he managed to land on the island and was
> hailed as a hero, who saved the lives of his passengers. In reality, he
> was the one, whose incompetence placed the passengers lives in danger
> in the first place.  Of course, the defective plane should not have
> been allowed to fly.

How does a pilot notice fuel leaking from a wing?
He might beable to see the wings. What kind of plane Fabrikant.
Most jet designs have the wings well back of the cockpit.
So by failed to notice it did you mean they didn't see the fuel leaking?
You'd think somebody sitting by the left wing would say something?

The only other way for him to tell is by a gauge or some sort.
Perhaps a fuel pressure gauge would indicate a leak?
Did he not notice it, because the gauge did not register a problem?
Perhaps the broken gauge was not working because of the man's incompetence?
The only other gauge would be a fuel gauge. Perhaps he saw just the fuel 
gauge going down.
Perhaps with the right engine struggling on the additional load, perhaps he 
perceived that engine
to be the troubled engine and then redirected the fuel to the leaking left 
engine.
Only to discover the leak continued and the fuel levels empied.

Of course he had fuel. He was not flying a light canvass and wood plane.
Commercial jets don't glide. If they have no fuel, the engines stop.
If the engines stop the plane does not glide, it drops stright down like 
you'd expect a few dozens tons of metal to fall.
He managed to find a place to bring the plane down over the ocean. An 
Island.
He landed it in those conditions, he is a hero.

And as you pointed out at the end, the defective plane should not have been 
allowed to fly.
So that is an issue with the maintenance crew. Perhaps it was their 
incompetence in failing to maintain the plane in good repair.
But maybe they did everything right. Perhaps the manufacturer was 
incompetant in the production of the parts that failed?
You haven't even established the pilot was incompetant, you just declare it 
with no proof. You facts don't keep a plane in the sky.
You said it ran out of fuel. That is impossible. If it ran out of fuel it 
would have dropped out of the sky at that very moment, and it could not be 
navigated at all. You live in prison - what the fuck do you know?
>
> Just recently, Air France pilot has overshot the runway, skidded into a
> ravine and caught fire.  If you think, this is a lousy failure, think
> again.  The crew was hailed as heroes for saving life of passengers.
> In reality, the pilot was the one, who endangered their lives in the
> first place.  If the weather was too bad, go to Montreal and land
> there.  In addition, we learned that out of 8 exits, 4 did not open;
> out of the 4 open exits, 2 had slides not working.

The weather was not too bad? The weather was horrible. The worst thundertorm 
in a long while, until the recent one that flooded a good part of Toronto. 
There had been a code red all day. MEaning planes could land, but not take 
off - due to the bad weather.
Landing is the pilot's call, depending on fuel, etc. The pilots chose to 
land. The plane is perfectly capable of landing in thoose conditions.
The runway is long enough. The ravine was supposed to have been filled in 
because a plane went off this very same runway into the ravine in the 70's.
They just made the ravine less steep, but never filled it in and extended 
the runway. So isn't it really the incompetence of the Federal government 
and the GTAA? They knew this runway can be over shot in bad weather, they 
kne what to do to avoid it happening again, and did not act. And you call 
the pilots incompetant. The weather fucked them up, that is obvious. But you 
have declared it was the pilots, even before the black box data has been 
released, or the investigation concluded. How would you know convict - you 
live in prison?

We don't want to hear what you think about some old article you read in the 
paper or see on the boobtube with your buddies.
We actually live in Toronto and saw the weather at the time. And incase you 
didn't get it, planes fly above the weather systems - it's only take off and 
landing that is affected. Leaving Montreal was fine, and Toronto was 
accepting landings. Who knew the weather would get ultra stormy for a few 
munutes at the time they decided to land? Um, so the pilos are incompetant 
because they coulnd predict a microburst of lightening strike?

You talk shit convict. Must be what you are eating. Have Issac send you some 
good food.

> NASA spent over a $1 BILLION to fix the problem of foam chunks falling
> from the fuel tank during launch.  During the last launch, a chunk of
> foam still fell off the tank, NASA has grounded all future shuttle
> flights.  Do you think, they would honestly say: "The last events
> proved us to be totally incompetent"?  On the contrary, the art of
> declaring any failure to be a success was switched in full gear.

Well I guess you don't know that NASA had designed the shuttle with those 
tanks inside the craft.
But the Gvernment would not give them enough money to build them, so they 
had to cut back on the design and put the tanks on the outside.
That is not NASA's incompetance, the the US government for not funding the 
project properly, and forcing the design to change to match the funds, 
rather than fund the design.

>
> I heard NASA representative saying proudly that NASA people are doing
> IMPOSSIBLE tasks every day.  It is sad that the reporter did not have
> guts to tell this representative: "Fixing foam does not fall into the
> category of things 'impossible', it does not even fall into the
> category of 'difficult'.  It seems like $1 million is too much to fix
> it.  You wasted $1 BILLION and still did not fix it.  Should not your
> top people apologize and resign in disgrace?"

It really can't be fixed. It is a design flaw.
It worked for 25 years, and now the damned thing is falling appart.
Bandaids for the Shuttle program cost big dollars.
That is why it is being retired in 2010.

>
> When astronauts arrived at the space station, they discovered that some
> filling was sticking out between tiles.  Again, instead of admitting
> that someone did not do his job of fixing the filling, NASA declared
> the event to be a smashing success: first in the world repairs to the
> shuttle.


It was a smashing success because it did not blow up.
The pieces of form did not hit the shuttle.

> During the past twenty years, NASA had 14 people killed in totally
> preventable accidents.  During the same time, Russians had not killed
> anyone.  Here is a suggestion: for the $1 BILLION wasted, NASA could
> have hired Russians to transport its crews fourth and back at least 10
> times.

Well the Russains never had a shuttle program. They still use rockets and 
capsules.
The American's are going on to third generation space flight in 2010.
The Soviets still use first generation space flight. Yeah the Russians will 
take anyone up for $100 million right?
And the only reason you cut it off in the last 20 years is because no 
russians have died in space, inflight or in training for 20 years.
But they died when their technology was brand new and it needed to be 
proven.
And only Russians Astronaughts died in space.


You know nothing because you are in prison and just don't get out anymore!


> Fabrikant
> 

"k_x!" <kay@x.com> wrote in message 
news:zZKdnXsfZ7_J-ZLeRVn-pw@wtccommunications.ca...
> Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> In chi.general Fabrikant <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Your posts are the longest most boring garbage I've ever come across on 
>> usenet.
>
> No, that title belongs to Defender of Enormous Manhood.

Thank you kindly! 

In chi.general Defender of Enormous Manhood <Defenderofenormousmanhood@rogers.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fabrikant" <benny_patrick7@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1125062995.416507.146420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>I have never seen a human being honestly saying that he was incompetent
>> and failed.  Usually, this person claims to be "not perfect", thus
>> creating impression that he is very good, just a little bit short of
>> perfection.  Here are some other examples.
> 
> Well convict, I am not sure you have any credibility when talking about 
> human beings.
> Nobody is perfect. People make mistakes. Things go un-noticed. Focus is not 
> always where it should be.
> After all people are not flawless machines. People suffer from stupidity and 
> idiocy. And even the brightest is
> just as susceptiable to a bout as a fool. So let's try and preface our 
> premise on known facts, rather than a very narrow view designed to give 
> structure to the idiocy you are about you spew out!

[cut]

Completely schooled. 

nice work.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:37:34 -0400, "Defender of Enormous Manhood"
<Defenderofenormousmanhood@rogers.com> wrote:

[snip]

==>And only Russians Astronaughts (sic!) died in space.

		While American astronauts died on the
		launching pad, as well as during takeoff and
		re-entry.

		If you really want to use accidental deaths as a
		measuring stick, the Russian space program has
		been far more successful than its U.S. counterpart.

		American space-program deaths:    17
		Russian space-program deaths:         4

==>You know nothing because you are in prison and just don't get out anymore!

		While you, apparently, are not in prison,
		and still don't know shit.

"Ivan Gowch" <the_gowch@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:te04h19flo1vkoe8m4tfld1nggf3mtqbuf@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:37:34 -0400, "Defender of Enormous Manhood"
> <Defenderofenormousmanhood@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> ==>And only Russians Astronaughts (sic!) died in space.
>
> While American astronauts died on the
> launching pad, as well as during takeoff and
> re-entry.

At least they didn't die in a cold dark vacuum!

> If you really want to use accidental deaths as a
> measuring stick, the Russian space program has
> been far more successful than its U.S. counterpart.

No, if I want to use accidental death as a measuring stick, then the 
American program has been more successful!

> American space-program deaths:    17
> Russian space-program deaths:         4

No, that is not accurate at all. That needs to be qualified
Why there have been over 70 Space program deaths just from American ground 
crew alone.
Then you are not including accidental death from Training

> ==>You know nothing because you are in prison and just don't get out 
> anymore!
>
> While you, apparently, are not in prison,
> and still don't know shit.

Well, the same comment can be made about this post and they shit you don't 
know.
Face it Ivan, no matter how much you know, their will always be way more you 
don't know.
I have to live with the same fact myself, so you are not alone in your 
ignorance.

But incidents? How many more incidents? One Space shuttle loss, you lose 
more lives than several Soyaz.
Subtract the crew of the shuttle that blew up on lift off and the one the 
disintegrated upon re-entry and you got most those 17 American Astronauts.
You make it sound like there were 17 American accidents and 4 Russian 
accidents, when the numbers are closer to 5 and 2 incidents.
And when you consider the shuttle is a re-useable vehicle, it's still way 
safer per kilometer travelled than any Soviety space vehicle.

Sure you can measure things different ways. But you really missed the point 
on this thread. It has nothing to do with the Space Shuttle.
It has to do with the fact that Fabrikant is lying about facts to make a 
case that experts are mostly incompetant, and even when incompetetant they 
are hailed as heros, even when the event that launched them to hero status 
was due to their own incompetence. The main point about the Shuttle was that 
NASA had a good design, the US government would not fund it fully. Had it 
been fully funded, the tanks would have been inside, the foam falling off 
would not have been an issue, neither shuttle explosion would have occured. 
It wasn't the expert  engineers at NASA who recommended the tanks on the 
outside. But it was the expert engineers who warned about o-rings failing, 
and went unheeded until an o-ring failed.

My point is he doesn't have the expertise to know who has been incompetant 
when, or if at all.

And for you. I have to wonder." > ==>And only Russians Astronaughts (sic!) 
died in space".

This is the point you have decided to respond to Ivan.
Besides the mispelling, it is 100% factual.
An American has not died in space, nor anyone in the American space program.
That cannot be said for Russia.

Do you see, when I say 1+1 is 2 and you say I don't know shit, you do. See 
how that positions you?
Well when no Americans have ever died in space, and only Russians have died 
in space, do you think anything you can say about the American space program 
can counter or negate that fact? The only thing that can is to produce an 
American who died in space.

But it geos back to the condition of Idiocy which can affect even the 
brightest. Don't worry, it's usually just temporary.


>
>