Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Candlelight vigil: IntheShade
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
Shana's demise
From FOF
"First, to set the record straight on "Shana". She was an internet troll of the highest order, evil and sick. I'm sorry some of you didn't have a chance to see the full catalogue of her comments, but at one point she described the comparative male anatomy (to the nearest inch) as inversely proportional to ego - based on her own personal experience with airmen. I think you get the idea. She had the emotional development of a 14-year-old runaway, and probably spent more time near the train tracks than she did the airport. She contributed not one single shred of insight to any of the topics under discussion pertaining to aviation. She was no pilot".
I got to read a few of her posts and the bantering back and forth between her and ITS. I believe her reference to the male anatomy was addressed to ITS only, and actually I thought it was quite appropriate at the time. (It made me laugh) As I have said before I think she was banned before she was given a chance to defend herself. From what I read she sounded like she had some aviation knowledge to impart, but got stuck on the spelling B thing. I have been a professional pilot for 40 years this year, and I have met quite a few women that have the qualifications and flight time that she professed to have. I think they should both be allowed to return and given the chance to right the wrong. Everyone deserves a second chance.
BB
Comment
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View PostI got to read a few of her posts and the bantering back and forth between her and ITS. I believe her reference to the male anatomy was addressed to ITS only, and actually I thought it was quite appropriate at the time. (It made me laugh) As I have said before I think she was banned before she was given a chance to defend herself. From what I read she sounded like she had some aviation knowledge to impart, but got stuck on the spelling B thing. I have been a professional pilot for 40 years this year, and I have met quite a few women that have the qualifications and flight time that she professed to have. I think they should both be allowed to return and given the chance to right the wrong. Everyone deserves a second chance.
BB
Comment
-
Originally posted by screaming_emu View PostWhen the only place you interact with someone is on an internet forum, that is all you have on which to base your opinion on that person.
I think for someone so experienced, he should spend more time sharing that knowledge and less time on useless posts that do nothing but piss off other members.
Lemme give you some free advice: if you have any regard at all for your career prospects, then between being on the good side of this entire forum and the good side of ITS, I'd pick ITS eight times every weekday and six more times each Saturday and Sunday.
Rock your wings if you read me.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ptbodale View PostTommy, comments from Spad13, ITS, Verbal and you have gone beyond simple "throwing darts". Comments that add nothing to the thread, in fact hijacking them, plus the bullying and open hatred against people and things not American was prevelant. Heck even Americans that aren't as white as you were on the receiving end of the attacks (ie. Rohan).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alpha Sierra View PostThere wouldn't be much for him to say. His entire cheap composites obsession has been shredded to bits by this initial report.Proudly serving WTF comments since 2004
Comment
-
Originally posted by Optimus Prime View PostThen it is obvious you are too dense to understand what his theory on cheap composites is.
Nice for you to stick up for ITS, but please refrain from characterizing forum members you know nothing about.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Optimus Prime View PostThen it is obvious you are too dense to understand what his theory on cheap composites is.
He also provided another expert with some insight, saying "Compared to Boeing tails, they definitely break easier". Breathtaking science there, really.
He also tries to pass himself off as a material science expert, saying the university he got his Bachelor of engineering degree at has a material science institute with a high reputation for carbon fibre research.
You have to understand how reputation works. The high reputation is a result of research done by professors and students working for a PhD, not because of an awesome "Basics of material science" class taught to engineering students in their first or second year.
The university I did my basic studies at has the biggest material science institute of any german university, I did a 2 semester material science class and a 40 hour material science lab. It covered the basics of what material science is about and if you think otherwise you are very sadly mistaken.
His theory also included citing the Air Transat Flight 961 incident in which the rudder was lost, even though the Air Transat rudder was glas fibre reinforced composite as opposed to carbon fibre on AA587.
So there we have 3 incidents, 2 different aircraft designs, 3 different failures, 3 different materials, all of which he tries to combine to prove that "Airbus tails are unsafe".
He had no theory as to why some pictures showed 2 of the 6 attachment points with the lugs and pins intact and aircraft fuselage attached to the roots. Even if the tail broke off due to aerodynamic loads and weak composites, it would still break the pins or the lugs instead of ripping out the root and fuselage skin with it. The fuselage skin is only the weakest point and will only rip off with the roots attached when the entire structure fails. There is no other conceivable way that would leave the lugs and pins intact and rip out the roots than structural failure, especially nothing related to "cheap composites", his favourite answer to everything.
He had no theory to connect the dots and played on anti-french prejudices and the everpresent "Fear of the Airbus". His motives were ill and his theory pathetic. He played on bigotry and got his ass banned and I hope it stays that way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Taliesin View PostOh I understood his theory, it included posting pictures of cavemen when talking about the french, it included articles of "experts" saying things like "So along comes 9/11, then hot on its heels comes AA587: The tail falls off; the engines fall off; even the little "Made in France" sticker falls off, and people die" thus implying the fact that it was french had something to do with it.
He also provided another expert with some insight, saying "Compared to Boeing tails, they definitely break easier". Breathtaking science there, really.
He also tries to pass himself off as a material science expert, saying the university he got his Bachelor of engineering degree at has a material science institute with a high reputation for carbon fibre research.
You have to understand how reputation works. The high reputation is a result of research done by professors and students working for a PhD, not because of an awesome "Basics of material science" class taught to engineering students in their first or second year.
The university I did my basic studies at has the biggest material science institute of any german university, I did a 2 semester material science class and a 40 hour material science lab. It covered the basics of what material science is about and if you think otherwise you are very sadly mistaken.
His theory also included citing the Air Transat Flight 961 incident in which the rudder was lost, even though the Air Transat rudder was glas fibre reinforced composite as opposed to carbon fibre on AA587.
So there we have 3 incidents, 2 different aircraft designs, 3 different failures, 3 different materials, all of which he tries to combine to prove that "Airbus tails are unsafe".
He had no theory as to why some pictures showed 2 of the 6 attachment points with the lugs and pins intact and aircraft fuselage attached to the roots. Even if the tail broke off due to aerodynamic loads and weak composites, it would still break the pins or the lugs instead of ripping out the root and fuselage skin with it. The fuselage skin is only the weakest point and will only rip off with the roots attached when the entire structure fails. There is no other conceivable way that would leave the lugs and pins intact and rip out the roots than structural failure, especially nothing related to "cheap composites", his favourite answer to everything.
He had no theory to connect the dots and played on anti-french prejudices and the everpresent "Fear of the Airbus". His motives were ill and his theory pathetic. He played on bigotry and got his ass banned and I hope it stays that way.
Parlour Talker Extraordinaire
Comment
Comment