Azerbaijan Airlines Crash

derg said:
I have and you should, they’re a lot of fun.

For a person who apparently doesn’t care what people think about him, you never miss an opportunity to talk to me about how you feel about things I’ve said.

I wish you were a buxom redhead! :)
Click to expand...
I think who you are here is not who you are at work or at home. Why not be the same person all of the time?
 
knot4u said:
He groups us together. He thinks we're in some sort of solidarity. I'm unsure why other than we both post things the majority of people here don't agree with.
Click to expand...
You are grouped together because you both spew nothing but nonsense, bitterness, anger, envy. You both also relish in playing victim. You can live in la la land, and tell yourselves that it’s due to your politics, but I can promise you every person here has friends/works with people with opposite views, and get along just fine.
 
HJB said:
You are grouped together because you both spew nothing but nonsense, bitterness, anger, envy. You both also relish in playing victim. You can live in la la land, and tell yourselves that it’s due to your politics, but I can promise you every person here has friends/works with people with opposite views, and get along just fine.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely not true. An astonishing number of folks "like" my posts and I don't have any adversary that I'm aware of. You are not in any position to judge anyone so go suck it.
 
knot4u said:
That's absolutely not true. An astonishing number of folks "like" my posts and I don't have any adversary that I'm aware of. You are not in any position to judge anyone so go suck it.
Click to expand...

From OpenAI:

This sentence is defensive, dismissive, and confrontational. Here’s an analysis:

Tone and Intent
• Defensive: The writer responds to perceived criticism by highlighting their social approval (“astonishing number of folks ‘like’ my posts”).
• Dismissive: The statement invalidates the other person’s perspective by claiming they are “not in any position to judge.”
• Confrontational: The use of “go suck it” is explicitly hostile and intended to provoke or dismiss the recipient.

Key Themes
1. Perceived Self-Validation: The writer seeks to affirm their own value and credibility through external validation (likes on posts).
2. Denial of Criticism: They reject any negative feedback outright by stating they have “no adversary that [they’re] aware of.”
3. Attack on Judgement: The writer undermines the other person’s ability or authority to critique them.

Use of Language
• Colloquial and Informal: Phrases like “go suck it” reflect a lack of professionalism and escalate the tone of conflict.
• Self-Affirmation: The claim of social support attempts to shield the writer from criticism, though it lacks substantive evidence or relevance to the discussion.
• Personal Attack: Shifting focus from the critique to the person delivering it serves to deflect the argument rather than address it.

Impact
• Likely to escalate tension rather than resolve any underlying disagreement.
• Dismisses the opportunity for constructive dialogue or understanding.
• May reflect insecurity or an inability to engage in critical feedback constructively.

This statement showcases a reactive and emotionally charged response that undermines productive communication.
 
derg said:
From OpenAI:

This sentence is defensive, dismissive, and confrontational. Here’s an analysis:

Tone and Intent
• Defensive: The writer responds to perceived criticism by highlighting their social approval (“astonishing number of folks ‘like’ my posts”).
• Dismissive: The statement invalidates the other person’s perspective by claiming they are “not in any position to judge.”
• Confrontational: The use of “go suck it” is explicitly hostile and intended to provoke or dismiss the recipient.

Key Themes
1. Perceived Self-Validation: The writer seeks to affirm their own value and credibility through external validation (likes on posts).
2. Denial of Criticism: They reject any negative feedback outright by stating they have “no adversary that [they’re] aware of.”
3. Attack on Judgement: The writer undermines the other person’s ability or authority to critique them.

Use of Language
• Colloquial and Informal: Phrases like “go suck it” reflect a lack of professionalism and escalate the tone of conflict.
• Self-Affirmation: The claim of social support attempts to shield the writer from criticism, though it lacks substantive evidence or relevance to the discussion.
• Personal Attack: Shifting focus from the critique to the person delivering it serves to deflect the argument rather than address it.

Impact
• Likely to escalate tension rather than resolve any underlying disagreement.
• Dismisses the opportunity for constructive dialogue or understanding.
• May reflect insecurity or an inability to engage in critical feedback constructively.

This statement showcases a reactive and emotionally charged response that undermines productive communication.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you've given up. I had a chat with some friends the other day about fractions vs metric regarding hex driver sorts of fasteners. I'm not going to go into the specifics of that conversation but the overall jist of it was metric is easy and fractions are hard and people were angry about it. I reminded the group that they learned to count in kindergarten, do simple math in elementary school and fractions are not algebra or trigonometry. The problem is if you let anything atrophy despite your belief that you have that action available you might be mistaken. I'm nursing a hurt shoulder, I went to the skate park near me and tried to spin a nose 360 on the mini ramp and buckled. I'm going to be fine and the kid who saw me try it nailed it and laughed not at me but with me.
 
derg said:
It was a pretty interesting presentation. I’m not sure how much of it is SSI but next time I ‘check in’ I’ll see if there’s a shareable document or video.
Click to expand...
It’s abundantly clear in the AM (not SSI) that we don’t take it to Russia unless there are no other options and the continued ability of the aircraft to fly was in doubt.

SEE I DID STUDY FOR MY TQ
 
That would be called an emergency, Douglas! :)

Or LAND ASAP on your Eca…I mean EICAS.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
It’s abundantly clear in the AM (not SSI) that we don’t take it to Russia unless there are no other options and the continued ability of the aircraft to fly was in doubt.

SEE I DID STUDY FOR MY TQ
Click to expand...
How bad would it really be to divert to Russia, a NWA DC-10 diverted to Tehran, was serviced and departed. No biggie
 
MikeD said:
If this is true. I want to know what SAM system it was that wasn’t m able to hit a non-maneuvering airliner aircraft and had to rely on its prox fuze for detonation.
Click to expand...
Rumor has it that it was a Pantsir S2.
MH17 was hit in the same fashion by a missile launched from a BUK system . The Proximity fuse detonated the much larger charge near the left side of the front of the 777
The S2 being smaller generated a smaller shrapnel footprint.
 
Skåning said:
How bad would it really be to divert to Russia, a NWA DC-10 diverted to Tehran, was serviced and departed. No biggie
Click to expand...
I suppose if we showed up carrying adequate amounts of currency, it would certainly...ease...things along for an expeditious departure.

(For the record, no, I am not interested in violating any federal laws concerning the bribery of foreign officials.)
 
@MikeD
"The vast majority of successful Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) hits are achieved using a proximity fuse because it significantly increases the kill probability by detonating the warhead near the target, even if it doesn't directly impact it, making it highly effective against fast-moving aircraft and other elusive targets"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top