Crossover and Crossunder

Bob Lee wrote:
klaus wrote:

Speaking of partitioned minds.. isn't that a good idea? I mean, if you
corrupt one partition, you still have the others... works for me.. And
the four guys following me around. Obviously, they're mind control
experts... they made me say that, just to throw you off.

Is this thing on? tap, tap, tap


You sound a little rattled. How's the elbow? Still a little swollen?

More than a little. But it's 1000% better than it was. Having something
come up this close to lift off is a bit uncomfortable, but that's the
game. But things seem to all be converging somehow, wish I knew how, but
they are. Still lots of loose ends, but they'll get tied off soon, like
this drain in my arm. Sat phone and solar charger just came in, food is
coming together. Waiting for some sponsor banners and a little gear. The
jet is lined out since it was determined it can land in Talkeetna, *and*
take off, with a light load of fuel and liquor. We'll likely take a
recon flight around the peak in style. Two weeks from tomorrow,
BigAir(tm) comes by to take us away. Great service, lots of leg room,
free in-flight cocktail service, lousy frequent flyer program. Planning
is necessary, planning is useless.

ObSkiing.. There's still a **** load of snow piled up around my house.


Looks like a couple of days skiing in the Nambé for me - John's on for
Sunday. I couldn't get anyone interested in Wheeler/Lake Fork.

Yah, just got a message from him and that's what he said. I've been too
busy to play much, trying to get ready and get all the bills paid two
months in advance. Cold and snowing here today. On an off, nothing
major. The Meadow Chutes are still totally filled in and pure white. My
older brother comes in tomorrow, so I'll be hangin' with him for the
weekend.

Enjoy your skiing. Be safe... Don't let John do anything silly.

-klaus

uglymoney wrote:

Snip, Cut, Tear-out.

Anyway, double Woosh. I've no idea what you guys are talking about.
It was 25 degree last night around her *and it snowed the morning
before that. Nuts. And in an hour I'm on the river waterskiing.

Carry on.

*Sorry about the chill from your sweetie, but sometimes they get like that.

Jack



nate

In article .com,
"yunlong" wrote:

Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
[...]
You are an ignorant blowhard.

Are you a homo?

So you're a misogynist *and* a homophobe? Or just an
adolescent pretending to be all grown up?

Not really, I can only pee with my thing now

That is very, very sad Sort of like owning a Ferrari and only being
able to blow the horn.

On Fri, 6 May 2005 08:57:29 +1000, "ant"
wrote:

uglymoney wrote:

Yeah, I saw that they bought ten of them. Suprised me. With the
nearly 10000 mile range of the 787 dreamliner they would be able to
run nonstops from Sydney to Denver, which would be nice. Doesn't it
get old stopping in LA or San Fran all the time?

They always stop at LAX, one of the worst airports in the world (although
this last trip, things were working a bit more smoothly, and the lines to
get through "security" were only 20-30 minutes).
And that's the thing. They make all international flights coming in stop at
a very small number of entrance points, like LAX. So even with these giant
monsters, they'll still have to stop.


Well, yes, but cities like Denver, Dallas, Minneapolis, etc, etc, all
have customs on site and international flights.

Qantas do a flight from sydney to New York (badged at Qantas the whole way)
but they still land in LAX and under the new rules, all passengers have to
enter the country at that point. In the olden days, they'd corral them
somewhere and have them enter at their destination.
I imagine they are planning on non-stop flights to Vancouver; currently I
think they have to stop at Hawaii for more petrol (and beer).

I think they have to stop in LAX for fuel though. Most of their
transatlantic planes are 747-400's with a range of about 8350 miles.
I think Sydney LAX is around 7500. They have some 747-400 ER's that
can fly 8800 miles or so, enough to put Denver in range. The problem
I would guess is that filling up a 747 for a Sydney Denver/Dallas
flight would be more difficult that Sydney LAX. A dreamliner with a
smaller capacity, and longer range, would be ideal for Sydney
Dallas-Denver-Seattle- and many points east.

The dreamliner could fly Sydney Chicago with 500 miles of cruise range
in reserve.


I'm not sure what is so horrible about the A380 though. The 747's are
awfully cramped in coach (though I've never flow Quantas). I doubt
the A380's will be worse.

Economy in Qantas to the US seems quite roomy, although very tall people (or
very fat people) have trouble. TVs on every seatback and a choice of 8
movies plus other stuff, free grog, more food than anyone could possibly
need (after dinner, they turn off the lights etc and give everyone a bag
full of bottles of water, chocolate bars, dried fruit, lollies, you name
it).


I forgot that I did fly Quantas once. A coach ticket on a domestic
flight and they gave me a huge business class seat both directions.
Still, coach looked cramp from up there. It was an old 747. Odd how
they have so many jumbo's in your neck of the woods. I even spotted a
very rare 747 SP at Sydney international. An old long range stubby
747. Very cool plane that was the longest range jetliner before they
started slapping the bigger engines on the wings of other widebodies.

http://www.747sp.com/viewphoto.asp?84

Those airbuses are going to crash, they are not trustworthy, and they are
way too big. You mark my words.

Interesting. They are large. Lets hope the wings don't fall off.

nate

Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
yunlong wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:
[...]
You are an ignorant blowhard.

Are you a homo?

So you're a misogynist *and* a homophobe? Or just an
adolescent pretending to be all grown up?

Not really, I can only pee with my thing now, maybe you like
to drink my ****?

Heh. Way to go, Ichin, you've now confirmed your standing as
a total fruitloop.

"What I'm running here (a temple) is a general store, if you come
looking for gold, I'll give you the gold; if you come looking for mouse
****, I'll give you the mouse ****."
-Yang Shan Hui Ji, a Chan master-


Now **** off, moron.

Or just you cannot make a statement without first
reference to your sexual cultured mind?

Me? This after you took my "blowhard" comment and turned
it into a gaye lame? You should consider getting some help.

Yup, "you cannot make a statement without first reference to
your sexual cultured mind."

To see how low you wanna go.

I'm not going down with you, if that's what you're waiting to see.

Glad to hear it; a foul mouth, reflects a dirty mind, doesn't not make
you a better skier but a pathetic human being.

IS


Bob

uglymoney wrote:

Well, yes, but cities like Denver, Dallas, Minneapolis, etc, etc, all
have customs on site and international flights.

They could already get to Dallas, I think, but they don't. I have a nasty
feeling there's a Rule that they have to stop at the first mainland point,
which annoyingly is LAX. Can't see teh point in flying Australia to
Minneapolis! Denver, maybe. If the plane stayed up high, I can't see that
Denver or SLC would be a problem now. But I think they have to stop at LAX.

A dreamliner with a
smaller capacity, and longer range, would be ideal for Sydney
Dallas-Denver-Seattle- and many points east.

I'm sure there'd be a market for Australia to Seattle, but no one does it.
It's Aus, LA or Van, and then hop to northern western US.

The dreamliner could fly Sydney Chicago with 500 miles of cruise range
in reserve.

reckon there's a market for that, too, but I bet they'd still make them stop
in LAX!

I forgot that I did fly Quantas once. A coach ticket on a domestic
flight and they gave me a huge business class seat both directions.
Still, coach looked cramp from up there.

I find it pretty roomy, but luckily even on fullish flights, I always get
the seat next to me empty. On empty flights I get all 3 seats! Better than a
rotten old skybed.

Odd how
they have so many jumbo's in your neck of the woods.

We travel a lot, everything's a long way from us, and there aren't very many
of us.
I think the only international flight I've done on a non-jumbo was in the
80s, on Continental, to London via the US (wasn't my idea). God that was
horrible, the plane was tiny and dirty and thank the lord Continental don't
do the x-pacific route any more although United are trying to make up for
them (in every way). I've flown JAL and Qantas ever since and in jumbos.

I even spotted a
very rare 747 SP at Sydney international. An old long range stubby
747. Very cool plane that was the longest range jetliner before they
started slapping the bigger engines on the wings of other widebodies.

http://www.747sp.com/viewphoto.asp?84

I see some 2-story fat planes that look like they are bent in the middle,
not sure if that's your special plane! hard to tell from that pic.

Those airbuses are going to crash, they are not trustworthy, and
they are way too big. You mark my words.

Interesting. They are large. Lets hope the wings don't fall off.

Something horrible is going to happen, I just know it. I'm not going near
them in a fit. I'll do a RTW before I fly in one of those monsters.

ant

"ant" wrote in message
...

Something horrible is going to happen, I just know it. I'm not going near
them in a fit. I'll do a RTW before I fly in one of those monsters.

RTW?

Return to work?

Row the whole way?


Wasn't the worst aviation accident ever (accident, not act of war) two 747's
colliding on the ground?

Richard Henry wrote:
"ant" wrote in message
...

Something horrible is going to happen, I just know it. I'm not going
near them in a fit. I'll do a RTW before I fly in one of those
monsters.

RTW?

Return to work?

Row the whole way?

Round the World. Often cheaper than direct routes. But a pain in the neck
because you have to land a certain number of times.

I almost did one a few years back, but with skis it'd be hell, especially
through europe where they regard luggage as a professional insult.

ant

On Fri, 6 May 2005 08:57:29 +1000, "ant"
wrote:


Those airbuses are going to crash, they are not trustworthy, and they are
way too big. You mark my words.

If you can name an airliner that's never going to crash, I'd love to
hear about it.

bw

bdubya wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2005 08:57:29 +1000, "ant"
wrote:


Those airbuses are going to crash, they are not trustworthy, and
they are way too big. You mark my words.

If you can name an airliner that's never going to crash, I'd love to
hear about it.

I'd much rather make my 14 hour flights in planes that haven't crashed much
in the past, as opposed to ones that're going to crash like hell in the
future, and kill 800 people per time.

ant