 | | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) The article I was reading was mentioning that the amount of flex needed in a wing was FAR less than the movement of a flap, as the wing surface was much larger than the flaps, and slight flexing made quite a difference in the airflow over the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) What, no response? Example of lack of justification. (...) Yes I did. Admitting fault is better than not admitting fault. It is not as good as never having acted wrongly in the first place, though. (...) You both impersonated someone by (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) With respect, you have not answered my question: Is that good or bad? (...) I was able to apologise and acknowledge my errors. Further, I don't view it as the "same" - can you show how it is? Like I said, my action may have been silly, but it (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) I suspect aircraft are expensive either way. The real question I would have is what would the psychological impact be on passengers who look out and see the wing of the aircraft bending up and down a lot? They might get additionally unnerved (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) Hmmm... wouldn't composite wings prove too costly for large passenger planes? They sure look like they can improve performance, and that is an invaluable factor when we are talking about fighter-jets (for instance). But would the increased (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Historical fudging...
|
|
(...) Santos-Dumond was a rich brazilian living in France since the late 19th century; he was a passionate of air-gizmos, and developed numerous baloons and blimps before attempting to build an airplane (first version from 1901, IIRC - at the very (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: <snip> (...) Thanks for the clarification. I read your above comment as a different issue than the comment posted below-- (...) Your first comment--in a general sense, arguements have strengths and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
|
(...) I said: ==+== Many arguments have a weakness. Readers may respond where "think they sense weakness". This may not be where the weakness actually lies.” ==+== Do you need an example? (...) off-topic. (...) I have no idea. But why go to the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) It was not a total troll post. Feel free to show that it was. (...) Yes I did. It is better to admit than not. (...) The apology was acceptable. But your criticism of Larry for the same seems hypocritcal. (...) The victims were people who (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
|
(...) Obviously, I'm look at this from a different perspective. (...) You've not answered my question. (...) Indeed. Did I not apologise? Was my apology not good enough for you? (...) Given that shoplifting is a crime with a victim, I'm not sure (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
