Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, I tried to drag things back into civilized territory.

 

This Canuck is done with you.  When even the overly polite Canadian is done with your shit you know, it just might be time to shut the fuck up or go away.  But whatever. Jeeps can chew on you for a while, or the boss can lay down the banhammer. Either will be just as vaguely amusing at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, roguetechie said:

No, he's just echoing what everyone else is thinking and not saying.

 

Speaking as one of the members here who isn't a world war 2 everything expert, yet gets along just fine in this forum because I KNOW and accept that i don't know shit compared to these guys! I can safely say that this is an amazing place to pull up a chair and actually learn some stuff from people who know their stuff. They have happily answered my dumb questions on more than one occasion in very friendly ways, so it's safe to say that if you're triggering this sort of response it's because you're being a fucking douchebag.

 

 

Dude, just 'cause you are "being a fuckin douchebag" - don't mean I am..

Don't be so quick to judge others by your own ignorance, huh...

( & FYI, the butt-hole licking you're so into, aint such a good look, either...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, M.B-5 said:

Yeah fixed that for you.. L.O.L...

 

Actually boss, I tried to find your "guidelines" at your suggestion, using the 'search function' - but nothing doin'...

However, aint the whole 'grandmasters/mean-girls' clique, bend-over for initiation newbie,  schtick - kinda last decade, already?

 

I'll take the good ol' 'Pepsi Challenge' on the veracity of the sources I've linked - any day of the fungin' week.

 

(& how is it - that the likes of J_G_T gets to vent an angry abusive tirade, rather than actually try to debunk my assertions?

Is it because he's tried/failed, but can't admit it?) 

 

 

 

So you really want to stand you have made no incorrect statements in this thread?   You have read nothing that has changed your mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You think you're Han fucking Solo, but you're really Jar-Jar, buddy.

 

What you don't know is that Jeeps is the only reason you are still allowed around here. So maybe you should be nice to him, or at least keep him entertained.


 

OYG boss!

Did you just admit that you are squirting milt under pressure from J_G_T, & you are... practically... his.. bitch?

Awww... no.. c'mon, say it aint so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, M.B-5 said:

OYG boss!

Did you just admit that you are squirting milt under pressure from J_G_T, & you are... practically... his.. bitch?

Awww... no.. c'mon, say it aint so...

Holy fuck, you really are a drooling imbecile.

The boss of the forum basically said he was ready to ban you a while ago.  Jeeps wanted to give you a chance to get back on track, but you keep going full metal retard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Well, I tried to drag things back into civilized territory.

 

This Canuck is done with you.  When even the overly polite Canadian is done with your shit you know, it just might be time to shut the fuck up or go away.  But whatever. Jeeps can chew on you for a while, or the boss can lay down the banhammer. Either will be just as vaguely amusing at this point.

Yeah, that's pretty funny, ( & Canadian comics are damn good ) - but just don't try on the ol' 'maple syrup' routine too, huh..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

How about your stance on the P-38 needing a bubble canopy? Your own sources proved that one wrong if you can't see that you are hopeless. 

 

 

Source?

Try this:  One of the contributors on the Aircraft of WW2 Forum is 'Biff' - a veteran USAF F-15 jockey, used to a clear-view bubble,

& he's on the record there - as incredulous as to why the lousy P-38 canopy wasn't replaced - after sitting in its cockpit, too..

 

But I suppose, you'd rate his view as "hopeless" too, since it contracts yours..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, M.B-5 said:

Source?

Try this:  One of the contributors on the Aircraft of WW2 Forum is 'Biff' - a veteran USAF F-15 jockey, used to a clear-view bubble,

& he's on the record there - as incredulous as to why the lousy P-38 canopy wasn't replaced - after sitting in its cockpit, too..

 

But I suppose, you'd rate his view as "hopeless" too, since it contracts yours..

As for how this forum works DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE is what we prefer, or citeable primary sources.  Some random dude named Biff isn't a citeable source that we would find credible.

 

But hey, keep going.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Holy fuck, you really are a drooling imbecile.

The boss of the forum basically said he was ready to ban you a while ago.  Jeeps wanted to give you a chance to get back on track, but you keep going full metal retard.

 

Ok, so that bit about your preference for "civilized territory" turned out to be so much 'Canadian T-bone' eh, Canuck,

...just a cheap shot..L.O.L...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Belesarius said:

As for how this forum works DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE is what we prefer, or citeable primary sources.  Some random dude named Biff isn't a citeable source that we would find credible.

 

But hey, keep going.

 

 

Biff aint no "random dude" eh, Belicosius, so you maybe wanna put some $ on it? ( Not Canuk $ though, natch L.O.L...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't give a shit about Biff your gay lover, not that there is anything wrong with that, but using him in this way shows you are not only a douchebag, but a but a scoundrel, and worst of all, not funny. 

 

Anyway, I have this cousin named Tommy and he flew P-38s and he knew Biff was a closet case and couldn't fly for Shit, and so fuck Biff. 

 

See, your post mean shit, no one takes you seriously and you have only yourself to blame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, M.B-5 said:

Biff aint no "random dude" eh, Belicosius, so you maybe wanna put some $ on it? ( Not Canuk $ though, natch L.O.L...).

Who is he?

Why is his opinion citeable? What technical qualifications does he have to be a reliable and credible opinion about WWII fighter design and visibility criteria? 

You aren't getting that if you are going to argue a point on this forum, you better have acccuratee and citeable data to back your shit up, and you haven't provided anything resembling that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, talk is cheap, but no one wants to pick up on my wager, eh?

 

Anyhow, so one of these two mid-1940s Lockheed fighters - has a shit cockpit canopy, yeah, you got it,  its the P-38...

 

https://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/129/pics/3_1.jpg

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/wp-content/gallery/usa/aircraft/p-38-lightning/P-38_Lightning_Maintenance_Burtonwood_England_cockpit.jpg

 

Dunno what's up with this site for posting pix...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, M.B-5 said:

So, talk is cheap, but no one wants to pick up on my wager, eh?

 

Anyhow, so one of these two mid-1940s Lockheed fighters - has a shit cockpit canopy, yeah, you got it,  its the P-38...

 

3_1.jpg

 

P-38_Lightning_Maintenance_Burtonwood_En

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would you compare a Navy Fighter not designed for long-range missions with an Air Force fighter designed for very long range missions?     It's a loaded comparison for a person bad at arguing a point, because he is ignorant as fuck, but thinks he's an expert, tries to use to prove a stupid point. You know that whole apple and oranges thing, well, maybe you don't because you are dumb as a brick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Again, dodging around the question. when people ask you something.

Answer my point. Why does a random F-15 jockey qualify as a citeable technical source on WWII fighter design?

 

 

 

He may be trying to be clever and is referring to the F-15 developed from the P-61, not that it makes his stupid point any more relevant. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-15_Reporter

 

(hahah someone can't figure out how to post pictures....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Again, dodging around the question. when people ask you something.

Answer my point. Why does a random F-15 jockey qualify as a citeable technical source on WWII fighter design?

 

You might be pretty "random"  eh, Canuck, but F-15 jocks aint & that's a fact..

 

He knows a shit canopy when he tries one on... unlike some here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

He may be trying to be clever and is referring to the F-15 developed from the P-61, not that it makes his stupid point any more relevant. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-15_Reporter

 

(hahah someone can't figure out how to post pictures....)

Yeah, that's a pretty good example right there J_G_T... the P-61 canopy was shit, like the P-38, too... 

- but at least that F-15 scored a bubble-top..L.O.L...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...