From Peter Stickney:

(LaDonna Wyss) writes:

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about; so you're saying
the two of you had a meeting and he couldn't answer your questions?

Not a face-to-face meeting, but a public network series of
conversations much as we are now. CT blew in much as you have -
making (at best) statements and analysis contrary to known facts, and
full of bluster about subjects that he/she/it clearly did _not_ know
as much about as he/she/it thought that it did. (I will use "He" to
refer to Stuffie in all further references in this thread, but
Stuffies true gender is undetermined and irrelevant)
In this particular case, he made a number of claims concerning a
subject that I certainly have more experience with - to whit, the Safe
Ejection Envelope of the Ejection Seats used in high performance
aircraft. I posed a question to him, and offered to provide the
source material that should have allowe him to either:
1. Back up the claim that such information to answer the question was
as easily determined as he claimed.
2. Admit that the solution to the problem wasn't as deterministic as
he had contended.

(I note that he followed up later in this threasd (Weekly killfile
audit) His account is not complete, or particularly accurate.
In particular, he missed the part where, over the course of 5 days, 7
attempts were made to E-mail him with the source material. He refused
to open it (Receipt indicators and the logs of the household SMTP
and NNTP servers back this up, and he apparently went to the point of
stuffing his own mailbox to capacity to avoid receipt if any data.)
He didn't mention _that_ part. I'm not surprised.

I'm not aware of any need to send an email 5 times in 7 days (when I
send an email, I send it once and then wait for a response).

Forum members who have gotten prompt responses to their emails to me
(sometimes with attachments in excess of 1Mb) know how accessible I
am.

Other options for making graphs and charts available is to post them
to a website or to use simple file transfer methods, both of which I
have used myself at various times in the past to make large files
available to the entire forum.


Test or no test, the original point remains:

A highly experienced pilot has a general awareness of when they are in
or out of the ejection envelope.


That was merely the culmination of a number of excahanges concerning
ridiculous, unsupportable, absurd, and in some cases, downright
slanderous contentions he'd put forward up to that time. The other
points mentioned refer to teh highlegts of some of them.

Or did you folks just try to "corner" him in here and he chose not to
respond? Those are two different things, you know.

Nope - a simple quiz. Anybody with his claimed expertise would have
either known the answers, or been able to find them. When the bet was
called he folded. Or, more to the point -
He activated Jammers, popped flares & started jinking (If in the air)
He popped smoke & ran (On the ground)
Or, perhaps, so sum up, he inked & ran away, in emulation of other
molluscs.

(Again, archives are available for independent assessment.)


~ CT