Is flight MH370 in Diego Garcia?

First topic message reminder :

Malaysia Flight 370 has now been missing for 27 days, the March 8th date of disappearance drifting further and further away. This is particularly torturous and frustrating for those with family and loved ones aboard the missing Malaysia jet and has also led to wild speculation about what happened to Flight 370.

One of the passengers, Philip Wood, has been the focus of one of the more prominent alternative theories about the fate of Flight 370. While some see this as just another Flight 370 Conspiracy Theory, a text and picture reportedly from Philip Wood, have gained a lot of traction among bloggers, on Facebook, and around the web.

The story goes that Wood, a high level IBM executive who really was on Malaysia Flight 370, sent a text from his iPhone more than a week after Flight 370 disappeared. The text reportedly read:

“I have been held hostage by unknown military personnel after my flight was hijacked…I work for IBM and I have managed to hide my cellphone… I have been separated from the rest of the passengers and I am in a cell. My name is Philip Wood. I think I have been drugged as well and cannot think clearly.”

Along with the text came a photo which, even though just a blacked out image, had lots of information attached that iPhone photos automatically include when taken. GPS coordinates of the phone’s location were most interesting and placed it, and presumably Woods, at a U.S. Naval Base on an island called Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean.


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1199399/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-search-new-leads-technology-and-theories-abound/#EPxlWFQZcXhXqpSz.99

Sassy wrote:Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

Which is saying what happens to ANY plane when it nose dives.  

Now, did you read what Ben wrote the other night?   Some of us have taken it on board and are trying to make his life easier, I guess you don't want to.

OMG you are one piece of work   

Sassy wrote:Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

Which is saying what happens to ANY plane when it nose dives.  

Now, did you read what Ben wrote the other night?   Some of us have taken it on board and are trying to make his life easier, I guess you don't want to.

Sassy most people aren't that abusive or whatever anyway, for the most part when they post, but I think it's unfair and absurd of Ben to tell us how to post.
I dislike being told what I can and can't write if the mood takes me.

He's not my dad and I'm not five.

Sassy wrote:Now, did you read what Ben wrote the other night?   Some of us have taken it on board and are trying to make his life easier, I guess you don't want to.

But, apparently not his own mod, Irn Bru.  Irn wrote his attack after Ben had posted the admonition.  Now...I'm not afraid to respond, particularly when I think a mod is being uneven and biased...even while playing it passive-aggressively.  

Irn's post was full of obvious inaccuracies.  I'm not going to let that go.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:[b]Now, did you read what Ben wrote the other night?   Some of us have taken it on board and are trying to make his life easier, I guess you don't want to.

But, apparently not his own mod, Irn Bru.  Irn wrote his attack after Ben had posted the admonition.  Now...I'm not afraid to respond, particularly when I think a mod is being uneven and biased...even while playing it passive-aggressively.  Irn's post was full of inaccuracies.  I'm not going to let that go.

Then point out the inaccuracies, don't try to twist what I said to attack him and tell him he should resign.   He could see, as could anyone who read it, that I was showing what happened to A PLANE hitting the ocean from a vertical dive, and the evidence for that was from that particular crash because it was close to land and the splintering was seen. Your pattern of trying to turn admin and mods against each other is coming through again.

Sassy wrote:Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

Which is saying what happens to ANY plane when it nose dives.  

Now, did you read what Ben wrote the other night?   Some of us have taken it on board and are trying to make his life easier, I guess you don't want to.

Sassy you can't tell anybody how or what to post. Ben has his opinions it is not because he is Admin that we should say Amen to everything and I am sure that Ben knows the difference. You obviously don't!

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But, apparently not his own mod, Irn Bru.  Irn wrote his attack after Ben had posted the admonition.  Now...I'm not afraid to respond, particularly when I think a mod is being uneven and biased...even while playing it passive-aggressively.  Irn's post was full of inaccuracies.  I'm not going to let that go.

Then point out the inaccuracies, don't try to twist what I said to attack him and tell him he should resign.   He could see, as could anyone who read it, that I was say what happened to A PLANE hitting the ocean from a vertical dive, and the evidence for that was from that particular crash because it was close to land and the splintering was seen.

What do you think I was doing in response to you?  You weren't talking about "a plane."  You were using the Alaska Air crash outside LA as an example.  When I pointed out the dissimilarity, you lost all reason and went on attack about my professional background.

Sassy, you can't win debates by attacking people irrationally.  You don't have the intelligence, education or experience for that kind of slight-of-hand.  You are an authoritarian, not a reasonable mind.  You should learn the difference.

David wrote:

Sassy wrote:Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

Which is saying what happens to ANY plane when it nose dives.  

Now, did you read what Ben wrote the other night?   Some of us have taken it on board and are trying to make his life easier, I guess you don't want to.

Sassy you can't tell anybody how or what to post.  Ben has his opinions it is not because he is Admin that we should say Amen to everything and I am sure that Ben knows the difference.  You obviously don't!

Oh dear David, you really are trying very hard to find something to fight about today, noticed on the eat pork thread. Never mind, sure you will feel better tomorrow.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Then point out the inaccuracies, don't try to twist what I said to attack him and tell him he should resign.   He could see, as could anyone who read it, that I was say what happened to A PLANE hitting the ocean from a vertical dive, and the evidence for that was from that particular crash because it was close to land and the splintering was seen.

What do you think I was doing in response to you?  You weren't talking about "a plane."  You were using the Alaska Air crash outside LA as an example.  When I pointed out the dissimilarity, you lost all reason and went on attack about my professional background.

Sassy, you can't win debates by attacking people irrationally.  You don't have the intelligence, education or experience for that kind of slight-of-hand.  You are an authoritarian, not a reasonable mind.  You should learn the difference.

Oh I have more than a Walter Mitty any day, and the only reason that particular plane was used as an example is because the results of a nose dive were seen first hand within a short time, and it was what happens to a plane when it nose dives. - They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.    What happens to a plane when it nose dives.

Sassy wrote:

David wrote:

Sassy you can't tell anybody how or what to post.  Ben has his opinions it is not because he is Admin that we should say Amen to everything and I am sure that Ben knows the difference.  You obviously don't!

Oh dear David, you really are trying very hard to find something to fight about today, noticed on the eat pork thread.   Never mind, sure you will feel better tomorrow.

Wrong, Wrong and wrong. Never mind as long you think you are right, right?

David wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Oh dear David, you really are trying very hard to find something to fight about today, noticed on the eat pork thread.   Never mind, sure you will feel better tomorrow.

Wrong, Wrong and wrong.  Never mind as long you think you are right, right?

Really? Oh good, then you won't be trying to pick any more fights.

David wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Oh dear David, you really are trying very hard to find something to fight about today, noticed on the eat pork thread.   Never mind, sure you will feel better tomorrow.

Wrong, Wrong and wrong.  Never mind as long you think you are right, right?

Take no notice David, as usual she accuses others of the things she is the worst offender for doing

David wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Oh dear David, you really are trying very hard to find something to fight about today, noticed on the eat pork thread.   Never mind, sure you will feel better tomorrow.

Wrong, Wrong and wrong.  Never mind as long you think you are right, right?

It is unfathomable for her to believe she is not right. That is why she immediately takes to personal offensive, without regard for the topic.

Proving her self right--as opposed to getting at truth--is the point for her.

Coming from you Quill, that's the funniest thing I have read in a long time.

Nems wrote:

David wrote:
Wrong, Wrong and wrong.  Never mind as long you think you are right, right?

Take no notice David, as usual she accuses others of the things she is the worst offender for doing

Surely she knows that I am debating  

David wrote:

Nems wrote:

Take no notice David, as usual she accuses others of the things she is the worst offender for doing

Surely she knows that I am debating  

Good luck with that! xxx

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What do you think I was doing in response to you?  You weren't talking about "a plane."  You were using the Alaska Air crash outside LA as an example.  When I pointed out the dissimilarity, you lost all reason and went on attack about my professional background.

Sassy, you can't win debates by attacking people irrationally.  You don't have the intelligence, education or experience for that kind of slight-of-hand.  You are an authoritarian, not a reasonable mind.  You should learn the difference.

Oh I have more than a Walter Mitty any day, and the only reason that particular plane was used as an example is because the results of a nose dive were seen first hand within a short time, and it was what happens to a plane when it nose dives. - They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.    What happens to a plane when it nose dives.

The point is--if you really want to talk the technical (and I doubt you do)--is, why did the MD-80 go into a nose dive? Obviously, if the plane goes into water nose first, it completely destructs. But we don't know that Flight 370 did that, do we? We don't know anything. It is unlikely a similar thing would happen.

The characteristics of a Boeing 777 are not at all like the MD-80. An MD-80 has an instability that gives it a propensity to nose dive. The Boeing 777 does not.

Sassy wrote:

David wrote:
Wrong, Wrong and wrong.  Never mind as long you think you are right, right?

Really?   Oh good, then you won't be trying to pick any more fights.

To be fair sass I did say something too, a few posts back.

No Quill, the point is what happened to it when it went into a nose dive and why they can't find any debris from the plane they are looking for.   As Irn said (and he is a lot better placed than you to know), the only way is could glide is if a pilot is in charge, and the chances are, if it flew until it ran out of fuel, no-one was in charge and flying it and it had been on auto-pilot until the fuel ran out.

eddie wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Really?   Oh good, then you won't be trying to pick any more fights.

To be fair sass I did say something too, a few posts back.

I know Eds, but you didn't have a sub-reason for doing it.

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

To be fair sass I did say something too, a few posts back.

I know Eds, but you didn't have a sub-reason for doing it.

Is pointing out your hypocrisy is a sub reason?

Sassy wrote:No Quill, the point is what happened to it when it went into a nose dive and why they can't find any debris from the plane they are looking for.   As Irn said (and he is a lot better placed than you to know), the only way is could glide is if a pilot is in charge, and the chances are, if it flew until it ran out of fuel, no-one was in charge and flying it and it had been on auto-pilot until the fuel ran out.

Can't resist the personal comment, can you?  What is it with you?

Okay, I said I would give you the opportunity to talk technical.  I respectfully suggest Irn is wrong about the Boeing 777.  The 777 is a fly-by-wire controlled craft, and the key to fiy-by-wire is to keep power up and control the aircraft.  It has batteries and as long as the engines are running, they are being powered.  That means that the plane would continue to fly for hours under control, but for the lack of thrust.  Fuel may run out, but the batteries do not in the short time they would have after a flame-out.

Therefore, it is my speculation that the auto-pilot would continue even when fuel ran out...at least until the plane hit the water.  The plane would continue to glide, albiet losing altitude.  But, decidedly it would not go in head first.

Now, of course we don't know.  I have to keep repeating, this is all speculation.  We don't know.  But I can safely say that Malaysia Air Flight 370 would not manifest the same flight characteristics that Alaska Air did.  An MD-80 is not fly-by-wire, and if it loses or freezes its horizontal stabilizer, it's going to dip it nose downward and make a beeline for the drink.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic, and not someone who wants fabricate arguments out of grudges back in Speak Free.

Well, Irn your knowledge of the Boeing is perhaps more technical than mine.  I only know the facts that I have a basis for, and my basis is shop talk around North American about developments in competitive companies back in the 1960s.

But if you look back and notice, this discussion was really a comparison of the Boeing 777 with the MD-80, or DC-9.  And the main focus was on the MD-80, since sassy had brought up the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261, suggesting it compared to a Boeing 777.

The MD-80 is a potentially unstable aircraft, if and when the tail assembly is disabled, according to my brother.  I know about the MD-80 from discussions I have had with him.  Now my brother is admittedly only a nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Lab, and a professor of physics at Berkeley, not specifically an aerospace scientist.  But he did his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth University in Engineering.  (I know it's not aeronautical engineering, but I do hope we are beyond stupid sassy arguments like that; parse any issue enough, and no one is an expert.)

We usually discuss theoretical physics, but this time he was discussing the wing of the MD-80.  He described the beauty of the wing of the MD-80, but brought attention to the fact that that axis is merely side-to-side.  The wings are relatively small, but designed perfectly to give the aircraft maximum lift, with minimal drag.  But with a side-to-side axis, all of the control of the aircraft depends on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer.  This is a diagram of the tail assembly of the MS-80:



The horizontal piece swivels as a function of a large jackscrew that runs up from the fuselage and is housed inside of the tail itself.  Turn it one way, the tail wing goes up; turn it the other, down.  It gets stuck, the pilot loses control.    To make matters worse, the MD-80 has only a single jackscrew, whereas other planes use a double (A-320, L-1011) or a ball-jackscrew.  Boeing uses a ballscrew design--that is on series 727,737,757,767 and maybe others.

The problem with the Alaska airlines aircraft was that the jackscrew assembly failed and due to either inadequate or non existent limit stops, the horizontal tail went well past limits, and well past what the elevators could overcome. I suspect the horizontal tail would've been stalled if it had full elevator one way and full trim the other.

The Boeing doesn't have this problem.  It's horizontal stabilizer uses flaps and lends stability to the whole aircraft.

PS: The Foxnews cite you offered does not load.  Perhaps retracted?  IDK...but faux news???

Quill, I'd read what had been said earlier on this thread and although I could have commented on some what I'd read I decided that it would would be best not to pour oil on troubled waters and I really thought that you would do similar and reciprocate with any reply that you came back with but alas, I was wrong and you have chosen to make further remarks that are more likely just to fire it all up again.

You apparently don't read carefully enough, Irn...which is a bad skill-habit for a mod.  I responded to sassy's technical post "comparing the Boeing with the MD-80" by mentioning that the MD-80 had a design issue (which is outlined above).  Sassy responded, not by addressing the technical issue, but by attacking me claiming I could never have worked for North American aviation, and thus did not know about airplanes.  She then attacked my whole professional background.  I simply defended myself, and eventually left the thread altogether when things heated up.

Now don't you feel ashamed for your mischaracterization of what happened?  Either you are biased or you are ill-prepared to follow the flow of discussions.  Have you considered resigning as a mod?

Irn Bru wrote:I certainly haven't seen anything from Sassy comparing the Boeing with the MD-80 or DC-9 but if you have then I must be blind.

Bingo!!  As I've just suggested, you are blind.  Here is what sassy said:

”Sassy” wrote:Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081230090602AA1gLMj

See:  http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3784p150-is-flight-mh370-in-diego-garcia

The Alaska Airlines crash she raised, unprovoked and on her own, was the Flight 261 which we have been discussing.  It was an MD-80 aircraft, which led me to comment on the design of that aircraft and how it is not the same as a Boeing 777.

Now that you have been led like a child through the debate, aren't you ashamed for your lack of concentration and inability to follow?  Don't you think you should apologize to me at this point?  If not to me, at least to Ben for having taken the mod position what with your bias and your ill-considered judgment.  I repeat, I think you should consider resigning.

Irn Bru wrote:Thanks for all the data on that aircraft  but it really doesn't take us any further in relation to what has happened to MH370.

On the contrary, it eliminates needless discussion about other crashes that are dissimilar and nonproductive.  It helps us to focus in of the precise facts of Flight 777.

What I believe is most valuable, and the take-home from this discussion, is the fact that you posted the above only to further the shit-stirring begun by sassy.  I think it's quite sweet that you have a unique passive-aggressive style, but it is just as malicious.  It may fool some on here, but I doesn't affect me.  As B'rer Rabbit said, I'se born and raised in the briar patch.

Parting thought: consider resigning as mod.

Well no i haven’t actually considered resigning as a mod and based on what you say I really have no reason to because I am also a member with views and opinions which I am quite entitled to have on here. And of course this isn’t the first time you have tried to play that card.

”Sassy” wrote:Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

Now please read what Sassy wrote above and come back and tell me where you believe I am wrong and show me exactly where there is a comparison between a Boeing airliner and the MD-80 or the DC-9. What she has done is show the effects of what would happen if an airliner hit the ocean nose first and the mention of the Alaska airliner crash. It's really just an example of that – not a comparison between a Boeing and an MD80 or a DC-9.  See, you just got a wee bit excited and thought you were on to something when you weren’t. To be fair though that does happen sometimes but now that I've explained it to you I’m sure you would be man enough to withdraw all that but if not, take it to Ben and you never know, if he agrees with you he may just offer you my job

As for being led like a child throughout the debate can I just remind you that you were wrong on;

Turning off the ACARS system,

The use of pallets in international airfreight.

Gaining access to the cockpit by the flight crew,

Airliners don’t nose dive into the sea or the ground.

A Boeing airliner can glide to ground and land on the ocean floor in much the same way as the aircraft did on the Hudson with no-one at the controls

And those are the one's off the top of my head.

As far as shit-stirring is concerned can I just point out that I replied to your earlier post without giving a  mention to anyone else or anything about the content prior to that for which you were extremely grateful – you said so.

As for your remark.,,,

you have a unique passive-aggressive style, but it is just as malicious.  It may fool some on here, but I doesn't affect me

You’re wrong about my style Quill but yes, I can see that it doesn’t affect you.

Now off you go and have a word with Ben

Just reading back over what has been said earlier and it really doesn't take long for a crowd to gather

David wrote:

Nems wrote:
Take no notice David, as usual she accuses others of the things she is the worst offender for doing

Surely she knows that I am debating  

   LAST week when I had the temerity to call the Uppity One out over her latest lies, she called me a "fuckwit" in here and lied about me at that point.
(That fraudulent little troll "Stephenmarra" then attacked me soon afterwards, in support of Sassy (nothing to do with this topic, of course - never is..) claiming that every other member on this forum is against me and supporting him (!) and hinting about how "tiresome" he is finding my comments - poor little entitled brat, he be..).

AND then a couple of days ago, Sassy launched a wild attack against an aside of mine to Quill and LD on here ~ which had nothing to do with her whatsoever !  
The senile old biddy is losing her marbles day-by-day..   :asbluras: 

THINK how much smoother life could be if EVERYONE would add Sassy to their "Foes" lists !

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You apparently don't read carefully enough, Irn...which is a bad skill-habit for a mod.  I responded to sassy's technical post "comparing the Boeing with the MD-80" by mentioning that the MD-80 had a design issue (which is outlined above).  Sassy responded, not by addressing the technical issue, but by attacking me claiming I could never have worked for North American aviation, and thus did not know about airplanes.  She then attacked my whole professional background.  I simply defended myself, and eventually left the thread altogether when things heated up.

Now don't you feel ashamed for your mischaracterization of what happened?  Either you are biased or you are ill-prepared to follow the flow of discussions.  Have you considered resigning as a mod?



Bingo!!  As I've just suggested, you are blind.  Here is what sassy said:



https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081230090602AA1gLMj

See:  http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3784p150-is-flight-mh370-in-diego-garcia

The Alaska Airlines crash she raised, unprovoked and on her own, was the Flight 261 which we have been discussing.  It was an MD-80 aircraft, which led me to comment on the design of that aircraft and how it is not the same as a Boeing 777.

Now that you have been led like a child through the debate, aren't you ashamed for your lack of concentration and inability to follow?  Don't you think you should apologize to me at this point?  If not to me, at least to Ben for having taken the mod position what with your bias and your ill-considered judgment.  I repeat, I think you should consider resigning.



On the contrary, it eliminates needless discussion about other crashes that are dissimilar and nonproductive.  It helps us to focus in of the precise facts of Flight 777.

What I believe is most valuable, and the take-home from this discussion, is the fact that you posted the above only to further the shit-stirring begun by sassy.  I think it's quite sweet that you have a unique passive-aggressive style, but it is just as malicious.  It may fool some on here, but I doesn't affect me.  As B'rer Rabbit said, I'se born and raised in the briar patch.

Parting thought: consider resigning as mod.

Well no i haven’t actually considered resigning as a mod and based on what you say I really have no reason to because I am also a member with views and opinions which I am quite entitled to have on here. And of course this isn’t the first time you have tried to play that card.

I really think your bias is totally evident by now, Irn.  You do a disservice to Ben pretending to serve the website, but in actuality furthering the discord.  You can have views and opinions (if you want to call gang membership that), but do it as an impartial member, not as a mod.  Ben has already expressed that he loathes people who carry on like this.  And here you are, right at the center of it.

Irn Bru wrote:”Sassy” wrote:Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

Now please read what Sassy wrote above and come back and tell me where you believe I am wrong and show me exactly where there is a comparison between a Boeing airliner and the MD-80 or the DC-9. What she has done is show the effects of what would happen if an airliner hit the ocean nose first and the mention of the Alaska airliner crash. It's really just an example of that – not a comparison between a Boeing and an MD80 or a DC-9.  See, you just got a wee bit excited and thought you were on to something when you weren’t. To be fair though that does happen sometimes but now that I've explained it to you I’m sure you would be man enough to withdraw all that but if not, take it to Ben and you never know, if he agrees with you he may just offer you my job

My god man, are you brain dead?  Sassy framed a comparison of the Alaska Air MD-80 with Flight 370, and that is a comparison of a Boeing airliner with an MD-80.  I raised this, and literally showed you this to your face.  I have said this at least three times, directly to you Irn, what the hell is the matter with you?  You are becoming as vacuous as Stephen.

Irn Bru wrote:As for being led like a child throughout the debate can I just remind you that you were wrong on;

Turning off the ACARS system,

I was absolutely right, you fool

Irn Bru wrote:The use of pallets in international airfreight.

This important...how???

Irn Bru wrote:Gaining access to the cockpit by the flight crew,

Airliners don’t nose dive into the sea or the ground.

You never answered the question, and so you were dead wrong.

Irn Bru wrote:A Boeing airliner can glide to ground and land on the ocean floor in much the same way as the aircraft did on the Hudson with no-one at the controls

The comparison was with the MD-80.  Flight 1549 was a reference to a belly landing and how it is quite the opposite of the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261.

My god, man.  You are the same as sassy, twisting everything in the conversation to mean otherwise. "[C]an I just remind you that you were wrong on..." How does this "reminder" absolve you of being ignorant on the details of this subject? You are again, having to be led like a child through the topic...or, you are faking your ignorance just to twist the conversation?

Irn Bru wrote:And those are the one's off the top of my head.

As far as shit-stirring is concerned can I just point out that I replied to your earlier post without giving a  mention to anyone else or anything about the content prior to that for which you were extremely grateful – you said so.

You lie, Irn.  People can read it for themselves.  You started out by accusing me of furthering antagonisms with sassy, when she had started this whole pile of shit.  Everyone already sees that.

It even goes back to when sassy was stalking me and hacking into my professional accounts.  You never seem to want to talk about that, do you?  You just want to do that passive-aggressive thing when you extrapolate language where you can accuse, but never have to defend.

Irn Bru wrote:As for your remark.,,,

you have a unique passive-aggressive style, but it is just as malicious.  It may fool some on here, but I doesn't affect me

You’re wrong about my style Quill but yes, I can see that it doesn’t affect you.

No, Irn, I am not wrong.  You come on with the appearance of being the 'reasonable man,' but then you launch into personal attacks just as you did above and in your prior post.  You completely ignore that your Demagogue, sassy, started this whole attack, and pick up at the precise spot where you can obscure the origins and accuse me of starting it.

You come on sounding reasonable, but then you hit with a maelstrom of accusations that have no basis in fact.  You usually end with some placating language, as if you had no part in the infection.  That is passive-aggressive, Irn--appearing to be what you are not.

Irn Bru wrote:Now off you go and have a word with Ben

I have no plan to have some secretive word with Ben.  Ask Bee or anyone who knows me--I say what I have to say on open thread, for all to hear and challenge.  On FF, I refused to have PM on my account...ask Bee or LD.  Fritz often called on me to ask for PM, but I never did.  I am open for all to judge and decide.

What you have to do, Irn, is decide if you want to be a trusted agent of this site, or--as you have been doing--betray that trust by creating appearances on the surface, but belying those appearances by your underhanded dealings below the surface.  

I'm going to keep calling you on it, my friend--as long as you keep giving me the opportunity.  So don't think it will end here.

Oh dear, total melt down. Can someone call an ambulance please? Oh you have, oh good. There, there Quill, the men in white coats will be here soon to make it all better. Poor soul, keeping up all that pretence has made him finally crack.

Lone Wolf wrote:

David wrote:

Surely she knows that I am debating  

    LAST week when I had the temerity to call the Uppity One out over her latest lies, she called me a "fuckwit" in here and lied about me at that point.
(That fraudulent little troll "Stephenmarra" then attacked me soon afterwards, in support of Sassy (nothing to do with this topic, of course - never is..) claiming that every other member on this forum is against me and supporting him (!) and hinting about how "tiresome" he is finding my comments - poor little entitled brat, he be..).

AND then a couple of days ago, Sassy launched a wild attack against an aside of mine to Quill and LD on here ~ which had nothing to do with her whatsoever !  
The senile old biddy is losing her marbles day-by-day..   :asbluras: 

THINK how much smoother life could be if EVERYONE would add Sassy to their "Foes" lists !

What's the point of a debate forum where everyone has each other on ignore and on their foe list?
Pointless.

eddie sometimes its just healthy to put someone on ignore i have didge on ignore he makes me feel ill and i don't like seeing his posts they aggravate me for some reason .

eddie wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

    LAST week when I had the temerity to call the Uppity One out over her latest lies, she called me a "fuckwit" in here and lied about me at that point.
(That fraudulent little troll "Stephenmarra" then attacked me soon afterwards, in support of Sassy (nothing to do with this topic, of course - never is..) claiming that every other member on this forum is against me and supporting him (!) and hinting about how "tiresome" he is finding my comments - poor little entitled brat, he be..).

AND then a couple of days ago, Sassy launched a wild attack against an aside of mine to Quill and LD on here ~ which had nothing to do with her whatsoever !  
The senile old biddy is losing her marbles day-by-day..   :asbluras: 

THINK how much smoother life could be if EVERYONE would add Sassy to their "Foes" lists !

What's the point of a debate forum where everyone has each other on ignore and on their foe list?
Pointless.

Poor old fruit cake thinks that BBC and Sky news reports are lies, apparently the only ones who know anything are the Australians  

VOD(original) wrote:eddie sometimes its just healthy to put someone on ignore i have didge on ignore he makes me feel ill and i don't like seeing his posts they aggravate me for some reason .

Well I'm quite capable of NOT reading a post if needs be lol

Or just leave a thread alone for a couple of days. Whoever it is usually runs out of breath after a couple of days and the topic returns to normal.

In this way, these threads are self-righting.

Sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

To be fair sass I did say something too, a few posts back.

I know Eds, but you didn't have a sub-reason for doing it.

To be fair sassy I was debating no underlying motives just debating. What do you mean by sub-reason? Is this your paranoid little mind taking over once again. I am tired of your attacks. On the kosher/halal thread I was just showing that you were overreacting.     

Original Quill wrote:Or just leave a thread alone for a couple of days.  Whoever it is usually runs out of breath after a couple of days and the topic returns to normal.

In this way, these threads are self-righting.

I agree on that quill

Original Quill wrote:Or just leave a thread alone for a couple of days.  Whoever it is usually runs out of breath after a couple of days and the topic returns to normal.

In this way, these threads are self-righting.

Good post Mr Q!   

@Quill - this is in response to you rather lengthy reply earlier. Sorry it's so long but there was an awful lot to get through

Get real Quill because you are just becoming ridiculous now with all this nonsense that you are coming out with. We are on page 9 now of this thread and you need to look back and read again the post where you as much as thanked me for my contribution in trying to get the discussion back on track. Indeed you as much as thanked me by saying...

Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic

But then you went and spoiled it all by saying....

and not someone who wants fabricate arguments out of grudges back in Speak Free.

Do you see now that it was actually you that decided to bring up all that stuff again and I merely suggested to you that what you had written was more than likely to provoke a reaction and fire it all up again rather than just get on with the discussion. You can read back all my contributions on this thread before that and you will not find anything from me that has done anything other than discuss the topic in hand.. You just went off like a roman candle when I pointed out that Sassy’s comparison between the Boeing and the Alaska flight was in relation to the effects resulting from an airliner diving into the sea nose first. It really is that simple.

Never mind  - moving on...

Turning off the ACARS system,

I was absolutely right, you fool

No you were not. You said it couldn’t be turned off with the cockpit instruments and were shown a demonstration by a 777 pilot who did exactly that

Irn Bru wrote:The use of pallets in international airfreight.
This important...how???

It was important enough for you to mention that the existence of pallets in the water could not be used as possible wreckage from a Beoing 777 because you said they only used containers. You even said that the last time you had seen them used was when you remember seeing them in some C-47s when you flew MATS around Europe -  in what appears to be a military aircraft - so were you in the USAF as well? You were also shown that pallets are indeed still used even on 777s.

Irn Bru wrote:Gaining access to the cockpit by the flight crew,

You were shown evidence that the flight crew can get access to the cockpit by using a password. You even replied by saying you didn’t know that.

Airliners don’t nose dive into the sea or the ground.
They do and you have been given evidence that they do.

Irn Bru wrote:A Boeing airliner can glide to ground and land on the ocean floor in much the same way as the aircraft did on the Hudson with no-one at the controls

The comparison was with the MD-80.  Flight 1549 was a reference to a belly landing and how it is quite the opposite of the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261.

Makes no difference which aircraft it is. No airliner will glide down with no-one at the controls  and land on the the ocean in the same way the airliner came down on the Hudson

And I never suggested that you should go off and discuss my role as a mod with Ben in private. Do it anyway you want but just do it and see if you get my job.

And I’m not going to go asking Bee. LD or some guy named Fritz (whoever he is) for some character references for you because you’re quite capable of doing that yourself. I also don’t know what FF is – I always thought it was a Bra size for busty women ( . )( . )

And finally. You said..

I'm going to keep calling you on it, my friend--as long as you keep giving me the opportunity.  So don't think it will end here.

Well that’s really got me shakin’ in ma shoes Quill. The prospect of you calling in some favours from your old pals from when you were an FBI agent running informants throughout the USA has got me thinking that maybe I should install electric fencing round my home topped with barbed wire and getting down to PC World to buy some software to beef up my cyber protection from attacks and possibly also someone yelling at me through a loud hailer from a Balck Hawk helicopter whiring above my house telling me to come out with my hands up and I won’t be harmed. But there again my style of posting doesn’t really affect you does it? so maybe I've nothing to worry about after all

David wrote:

Sassy wrote:
I know Eds, but you didn't have a sub-reason for doing it.

To be fair sassy I was debating no underlying motives just debating.  What do you mean by sub-reason?  Is this your paranoid little mind taking over once again.  I am tired of your attacks.  On the kosher/halal thread I was just showing that you were overreacting.    

 

  

I AGREE wholeheartedly, David !!!

That silly little phase "a sub-reason" is nothing more than a totally ridiculous new low in stupidity dreamt up by a desperate and grasping mind trying too hard to explain itself..

Frau Sassyness's credibility has probably never been any lower than it has fallen to over these past couple of weeks ?

MAKING UP such droll phrases on the run to try and reclaim the upper hand is pure lunacy..    

****************************************************************

TO TRY and help get this thread back on track :

   I have yet to see anybody actually put forward a viable and rational reason to back the various conspiracy theories that keep on cropping up...

WHY would somebody want to kidnap an IBM executive these days, anyway  ~ if it were a top-shelf researcher than just maybe he would have something to offer ~ but certainly not the executive of what is these days a shrinking second-rate mainframe producer..

AS FOR the rumours about the group of Chinese "electronics experts" on board ~ thinking that they may somehow have been either the world's leading team of computer hackers, or a team of researchers on the verge of the next great breakthrough ?  That notion ignores the reality of hundreds of groups of R&D developers at work on these subjects around the world..  

THIS all lends more weight to those more fanciful and deranged conspiracy nutters on Twitter and Facebook claiming it were an "extraterrestrial abduction !" ~ some failing civilisation out there in the far-flung Cosmos needs a couple of plane loads of Earthling "intellectuals" so as to improve their inbred genetics at home ~ and just as well that they have managed to achieve a minor thing like Interstellar Spaceflight in the meantimes, isn't it !  

You are such a fool Bee, on the thread in question (which if David had actually looked, I didn't start and didn't agree with the premise), I agreed with David twice, but he still tried to pick a fight. Which is exactly what he, Nems, Quill and you have been doing.

Your are a sad sack and laughing stock. Now, do be a good boy and go and take your medication.

Irn Bru wrote:@Quill - this is in response to you rather lengthy reply earlier. Sorry it's so long but there was an awful lot to get through

Get real Quill because you are just becoming ridiculous now with all this nonsense that you are coming out with. We are on page 9 now of this thread and you need to look back and read again the post where you as much as thanked me for my contribution in trying to get the discussion back on track. Indeed you as much as thanked me by saying...

Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic

But then you went and spoiled it all by saying....

and not someone who wants fabricate arguments out of grudges back in Speak Free.

Do you see now that it was actually you that decided to bring up all that stuff again and I merely suggested to you that what you had written was more than likely to provoke a reaction and fire it all up again rather than just get on with the discussion. You can read back all my contributions on this thread before that and you will not find anything from me that has done anything other than discuss the topic in hand.. You just went off like a roman candle when I pointed out that Sassy’s comparison between the Boeing and the Alaska flight was in relation to the effects resulting from an airliner diving into the sea nose first. It really is that simple.

Never mind  - moving on...

Turning off the ACARS system,

I was absolutely right, you fool

No you were not. You said it couldn’t be turned off with the cockpit instruments and were shown a demonstration by a 777 pilot who did exactly that

Irn Bru wrote:The use of pallets in international airfreight.
This important...how???

It was important enough for you to mention that the existence of pallets in the water could not be used as possible wreckage from a Beoing 777 because you said they only used containers. You even said that the last time you had seen them used was when you remember seeing them in some C-47s when you flew MATS around Europe -  in what appears to be a military aircraft - so were you in the USAF as well? You were also shown that pallets are indeed still used even on 777s.

Irn Bru wrote:Gaining access to the cockpit by the flight crew,

You were shown evidence that the flight crew can get access to the cockpit by using a password. You even replied by saying you didn’t know that.

Airliners don’t nose dive into the sea or the ground.
They do and you have been given evidence that they do.

Irn Bru wrote:A Boeing airliner can glide to ground and land on the ocean floor in much the same way as the aircraft did on the Hudson with no-one at the controls

The comparison was with the MD-80.  Flight 1549 was a reference to a belly landing and how it is quite the opposite of the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261.

Makes no difference which aircraft it is. No airliner will glide down with no-one at the controls  and land on the the ocean in the same way the airliner came down on the Hudson

And I never suggested that you should go off and discuss my role as a mod with Ben in private. Do it anyway you want but just do it and see if you get my job.

And I’m not going to go asking Bee. LD or some guy named Fritz (whoever he is) for some character references for you because you’re quite capable of doing that yourself. I also don’t know what FF is – I always thought it was a Bra size for busty women ( . )( . )

And finally. You said..

I'm going to keep calling you on it, my friend--as long as you keep giving me the opportunity.  So don't think it will end here.

Well that’s really got me shakin’ in ma shoes Quill. The prospect of you calling in some favours from your old pals from when you were an FBI agent running informants throughout the USA has got me thinking that maybe I should install electric fencing round my home topped with barbed wire and getting down to PC World to buy some software to beef up my cyber protection from attacks and possibly also someone yelling at me through a loud hailer from a Balck Hawk helicopter whiring above my house telling me to come out with my hands up and I won’t be harmed. But there again my style of posting doesn’t really affect you does it? so maybe I've nothing to worry about after all

I wonder when that worked into the time line?  ::D::

Because don't forget, he also said back on Speak that he did time working in the Middle East at an Embassy or something when we were discussing a Middle East event.

Sassy wrote:You are such a fool Bee, on the thread in question (which if David had actually looked, I didn't start and didn't agree with the premise), I agreed with David twice, but he still tried to pick a fight.   Which is exactly what he, Nems, Quill and you have been doing.

Your are a sad sack and laughing stock.   Now, do be a good boy and go and take your medication.

I think you will find this is classed as picking a fight
Hypocrite.

This post was made by Nems who is currently on your ignore list. See the message.

Sassy wrote:This post was made by Nems who is currently on your ignore list. See the message.

Hahahahahaha!
Christ on a bike, do you sit there waiting to pounce!?
The point of ignoring me is to well, ignore me!
 ::attn:: 

Irn Bru wrote:@Quill - this is in response to you rather lengthy reply earlier. Sorry it's so long but there was an awful lot to get through

Get real Quill because you are just becoming ridiculous now with all this nonsense that you are coming out with. We are on page 9 now of this thread and you need to look back and read again the post where you as much as thanked me for my contribution in trying to get the discussion back on track. Indeed you as much as thanked me by saying...

Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic

But then you went and spoiled it all by saying....

and not someone who wants fabricate arguments out of grudges back in Speak Free.

Do you see now that it was actually you that decided to bring up all that stuff again and I merely suggested to you that what you had written was more than likely to provoke a reaction and fire it all up again rather than just get on with the discussion. You can read back all my contributions on this thread before that and you will not find anything from me that has done anything other than discuss the topic in hand.. You just went off like a roman candle when I pointed out that Sassy’s comparison between the Boeing and the Alaska flight was in relation to the effects resulting from an airliner diving into the sea nose first. It really is that simple.

What are you doing right now Irn, but trying to exacerbate the fire?  This is what I mean about your passive-aggresive style.  Even while you appear calm and rational, your purpose is to carry on the antagonism.  Look not at a person's words, but at his purposes.

You seem to have a difficult time with the fact that I do respect you.  Under ordinary circumstances (ie, unencumbered by some argument you must save sassy from) you have a quick and incisive mind, and usually some interesting facts or ideas to contribute.  So I welcome you to a debate--Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic--but that quickly turns to disappointment when I realize halfway through the read, your sub rosa purpose is to further sassy's argument.

For the sake of discussion between us, because everyone else knows, sassy left the subject and started this argument when she abandoned a technical discussion and started in on ME...my background and then me personally.  That's where it all went wrong.  If you want to start there, I'll discuss it with you; if you don't, we'll know you are fabricating.

It has become well known you are the first mate of what I call the "sassy-posse."  People have remarked that the difference between you and me is you cannot stand up to sassy.  I have a more pragmatic view: you are an enabler.  This crazy bag-lady--with too much adrenaline and a deficit of intelligence--wanders these threads starting these fires, being unable to finish them.  You, the enabler, inevitably come along and try to extricate her from the trouble she has caused.

You are otherwise quite an interesting and nice guy--but your purpose will cause you big trouble.  In style, you have developed what I call a passive-aggressive approach.  Even above, you yet profess to having some technical discussion, when in fact your real purpose is put up enough smoke so you can drag sassy out of whatever predicament she has set herself in. Passive-aggressive...or, appearing to be what you are not.  And you do all of this to enable sassy, the one person who keeps dragging you into the affray.

Irn Bru wrote:Never mind  - moving on...

[Irrelevant, off-topic discussion deleted.]

Irn Bru wrote:Airliners don’t nose dive into the sea or the ground.

They do and you have been given evidence that they do.

That is not what I said...you are re-framing the discussion.  I said a Boeing aircraft, operating under auto-pilot is not going to suddenly pitch  45° and dive to the ocean; under the circumstances of Alaska Air MD-80, the defect it has will cause it to do just that.  (It was in this discussion that sassy fell apart.)  I mention this because re-framing is one of the tools you use in your passive-aggressive approach.

Irn Bru wrote:Irn Bru wrote:A Boeing airliner can glide to ground and land on the ocean floor in much the same way as the aircraft did on the Hudson with no-one at the controls

The comparison was with the MD-80.  Flight 1549 was a reference to a belly landing and how it is quite the opposite of the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261.

Makes no difference which aircraft it is. No airliner will glide down with no-one at the controls  and land on the the ocean in the same way the airliner came down on the Hudson

It makes a great deal of difference.  I am trying to give the reader a picture of two different flight characteristics.  The MD-80 can and will nose dive as Flight 261 did, a Boeing operating on auto-pilot will simply gilde, losing altitude until it bellies into water.

Irn Bru wrote:And I never suggested that you should go off and discuss my role as a mod with Ben in private. Do it anyway you want but just do it and see if you get my job.

And I’m not going to go asking Bee. LD or some guy named Fritz (whoever he is) for some character references for you because you’re quite capable of doing that yourself. I also don’t know what FF is – I always thought it was a Bra size for busty women ( . )( . )

And finally. You said..

I'm going to keep calling you on it, my friend--as long as you keep giving me the opportunity.  So don't think it will end here.

Well that’s really got me shakin’ in ma shoes Quill. The prospect of you calling in some favours from your old pals from when you were an FBI agent running informants throughout the USA has got me thinking that maybe I should install electric fencing round my home topped with barbed wire and getting down to PC World to buy some software to beef up my cyber protection from attacks and possibly also someone yelling at me through a loud hailer from a Balck Hawk helicopter whiring above my house telling me to come out with my hands up and I won’t be harmed. But there again my style of posting doesn’t really affect you does it? so maybe I've nothing to worry about after all

You are being childish, Irn.  The comment about the FBI was a joke, and not serious.  But again, I mention it as an example of how you avoid honest references, and re-frame past discussions.  I would hate to read your alleged book, Irn; an academic treatise that did this would be soundly criticised and rejected.

Lone Wolf wrote:

David wrote:

To be fair sassy I was debating no underlying motives just debating.  What do you mean by sub-reason?  Is this your paranoid little mind taking over once again.  I am tired of your attacks.  On the kosher/halal thread I was just showing that you were overreacting.    

 

  

I AGREE wholeheartedly, David !!!

That silly little phase "a sub-reason" is nothing more than a totally ridiculous new low in stupidity dreamt up by a desperate and grasping mind trying too hard to explain itself..

Frau Sassyness's credibility has probably never been any lower than it has fallen to over these past couple of weeks ?

MAKING UP such droll phrases on the run to try and reclaim the upper hand is pure lunacy..    

****************************************************************

TO TRY and help get this thread back on track :

   I have yet to see anybody actually put forward a viable and rational reason to back the various conspiracy theories that keep on cropping up...

WHY would somebody want to kidnap an IBM executive these days, anyway  ~ if it were a top-shelf researcher than just maybe he would have something to offer ~ but certainly not the executive of what is these days a shrinking second-rate mainframe producer..

AS FOR the rumours about the group of Chinese "electronics experts" on board ~ thinking that they may somehow have been either the world's leading team of computer hackers, or a team of researchers on the verge of the next great breakthrough ?  That notion ignores the reality of hundreds of groups of R&D developers at work on these subjects around the world..  

THIS all lends more weight to those more fanciful and deranged conspiracy nutters on Twitter and Facebook claiming it were an "extraterrestrial abduction !" ~ some failing civilisation out there in the far-flung Cosmos needs a couple of plane loads of Earthling "intellectuals" so as to improve their inbred genetics at home ~ and just as well that they have managed to achieve a minor thing like Interstellar Spaceflight in the meantimes, isn't it !  

I agree, some of the theories being put forward are simply wild fantasies.  But fantasies need not all be wild and crazy; if one quietly frames his or her fantasy with enough dials, knobs, buttons and mumbo-jumbo, what do we have?  We have the government or governments.  We have the press.  We have all the officials and authorities that want to blow smoke in our faces.

When Morton-Thiokol blew up the Space Shuttle Challenger, everyone raced around giving the official version--the sanitized and sanctioned version--that no one is to blame and, well...shit happens.  Then a simple, nobel-prize winning Stanford physicist--who had been put on the Rogers Investigation Commission to add a petina of legitimacy--decided to stop all the pablum-feeding and do his own investigation.  Professor Feynman found that the O-rings in the solid rocket motor were being burned through in the initial blast, and the a prior mission--STS No. 7--also almost exploded as well.  Even today the Rogers Commission report puts Professor Feynman's findings in an addendum to the official report, but his theory turned out to be the correct one.

Another reason why I raise Professor Richard Feynman is his no-bullshit independence.  While everybody was going along with the spoon-fed nonsense, he chose to do independent research and use a little reason.  Do you begin to see something of that in this situation?

Nobody knows what happened to Flight 370.  It could be anywhere in the Eastern Hemisphere.  Those who swallow the official story--like the Rogers Commission--are dutifully sniffing around the south Indian Ocean.  On the other hand, some of the best fiction writers are making up conspiracies everywhere.  What about taking Richard Feynman's approach and simply doing an accounting of what we know, and what we do not know.  We know a plane took off.  We know it changed it's expected course and did something of a 165-70° turn.  We know it went silent and ACARS and transponders were switched off.  We know it changed course again and headed north and out the Malacca Strait.  

Beyond that, one single thing is paramount: We don't know anything.  That fact is as well-established as anything else we know.  At this point we are being asked to be reasonable, and reasonably speculate on where the aircraft went.  Diego Garcia?  No facts.  Afghanistan?  No facts.  Anywhere else?  No facts.  South Indian Ocean?  Eheaaa...brief, ever so sketchy evidence that the aircraft flew south.  New science.  Never tried before.  The only thing we know is we know nothing, really.

It's time for a Professor Richard Feynman to come along and--apart from the crowd--to take a fresh look at all the evidence.  Professor Feynman died in February, 1988.

RIP Professor Feynman.
One of ours who tried to stand apart from the crowd was Dr David Kelly, he 'committed suicide'.
There was a programme on last night about flight 370, didnt add anything to what we know really, it concentrated on the areas when the problem could have been. Pilot suicide, pilots not being searched, the fact that the black box hold less info than a smartphone etc.
One thing did strike me though, Inmarsat the UK company that looked at the pings that went on after the aircraft stopped communicating with the ground. They thought two possible flight paths, one south to the Indian Ocean the other North towards, was it Kazakhstan?? Why was this northern one discounted?

Right Nems. Gd question. They are saying south Indian Ocean solely because of the admittedly weak Inmarsat analysis. That plus some insubstantial pings that have led nowhere.

To a healthy doubter, the Afghanistan and Kazakhstan destinations are still possible.

Original Quill wrote:Right Nems.  Gd question.  They are saying south Indian Ocean solely because of the admittedly weak Inmarsat analysis.  That plus some insubstantial pings that have led nowhere.

To a healthy doubter, the Afghanistan and Kazakhstan destinations are still possible.

It was saying last night that Inmarsat were the only ones to really follow up the pings because they dont give you a location.

Sassy wrote:You are such a fool Bee, on the thread in question (which if David had actually looked, I didn't start and didn't agree with the premise), I agreed with David twice, but he still tried to pick a fight.   Which is exactly what he, Nems, Quill and you have been doing.

Your are a sad sack and laughing stock.   Now, do be a good boy and go and take your medication.

I never picked up a fight there and then now you are delusional   

Hail, hail, the gangs all here    

Sassy wrote:Hail, hail, the gangs all here    

 ::attn:: 

I may take a trip to Diego Garcia. Get a last minute sunshine break deal.....hit the beach and find me a soldier.