Origin of Harada - discussion

[ManofTheAtom]

No, it's definitely you being an *SQUEE*.

If I had wanted to talk about gliders, I wouldn't have mentioned turbines or called them airplanes, I'd have said gliders.

The conversation is about airplanes with turbines.

I say airplanes need turbines to fly, you say they don't.

Your planes are magical.

So we have reached the conclusion that airplanes with turbine engines require turbines to fly.

That is correct.

I think part of the problem here is that when you say "airplane", you mean "turbine-powered jet". When we read airplane, we think "fixed-wing aircraft", which is the definition most people in the world would think of, which doesn't necessarily require a turbine engine.

The problem here is with accuracy and assumptions.

The problem is that some people prefer to be *SQUEE* then actually read what's being said.

[X-O HoboJoe]

1.) A glider IS an airplane.

2.) No, the engine is NOT what keeps the plane in the air. Look at the word itself if that helps: "Air-Plane" The air part is obvious, so where are they getting the plane from?

3.) What keeps a helio in the air?

That's you being an *SQUEE*, because you know very well that I'm talking about airplanes WITH turbines. Gliders don't have them.

Nope, that's me being logical, the only one having a ban-worthy meltdown here is you.

OK, take it a step further -- fixed-wing vs. rotory-wing (actually the rotory-wing is a lot closer to what you're claiming to be correct. There ain't no gliding heliocopters fo' sure.)

No, it's definitely you being an *SQUEE*.

If I had wanted to talk about gliders, I wouldn't have mentioned turbines or called them airplanes, I'd have said gliders.

The conversation is about airplanes with turbines.

I say airplanes need turbines to fly, you say they don't.

Your planes are magical.

No, you are mistaken and either too proud or stupid to admit it.

Must be Tuesday.

So airplanes don't need turbines to fly?

They must fly on pixie dust.

Nope, planes don't need turbines to fly, but they do fly a lot better with them.

No amount of attempted tactical redifinition or dissimilation will counter that.

[Dr. Solar]

The problem is that some people prefer to be *SQUEE* then actually read what's being said.

Sometimes you write stuff, and we think it is wrong and unaccurate.

When we tell you that, and point out examples of why we think what you are saying is wrong, you come up with one of many responses, like we are *SQUEE*, we aren't reading what you wrote, or that we want Valiant -lite.

fact: a glider is a type of airplane, and it doesn't have a turbine engine.

This is in direct opposition to your statement that turbines make airplanes fly.

air·plane –noun
1. a heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc.
2. any similar heavier-than-air aircraft, as a glider or helicopter.

This isn't a big deal, but you made an incorrect statement. I make them all the time too.

[ManofTheAtom]

Nope, planes don't need turbines to fly, but they do fly a lot better with them.

No amount of attempted tactical redifinition or dissimilation will counter that.

The analogy was what makes a plane stay airborne so it doesn't fall to the ground.

A glider, because it lacks an engine, CAN'T stay airborne unless it uses hot air winds to push itself up.

An airplane accomplishes the same thing with a turbine, making it less dependant on hot air (which most people on this thread seem to have in ABUNDANCE).

That's what keeps going over your head.

Gliders, since they lack turbines and would fall to the ground unless they can ride hot air winds (or vents, I forget the right word there), fall to the ground.

Airplanes with turbines DON'T.

See how simple that ways?

If an airplane has a turbine, it's less likely to fall to the ground (unless, say, the turbine were to fail).

Maybe if I used pixies as an alegory for what a turbine does it be easier for you to grasp... or maybe not, maybe it's easier to be an *SQUEE*.

[X-O HoboJoe]

No, it's definitely you being an *SQUEE*.

If I had wanted to talk about gliders, I wouldn't have mentioned turbines or called them airplanes, I'd have said gliders.

The conversation is about airplanes with turbines.

I say airplanes need turbines to fly, you say they don't.

Your planes are magical.

So we have reached the conclusion that airplanes with turbine engines require turbines to fly.

That is correct.

I think part of the problem here is that when you say "airplane", you mean "turbine-powered jet". When we read airplane, we think "fixed-wing aircraft", which is the definition most people in the world would think of, which doesn't necessarily require a turbine engine.

The problem here is with accuracy and assumptions.

The problem is that some people prefer to be *SQUEE* then actually read what's being said.

Tell you what: Write something worth reading all the way through and I will.

You're beat: You've been proven wrong. All you're doing now is trying to distract from that fact with posturing and insults. Sack up and admit it then drive on. There are comics out there where the stupid people put different posters on the walls in different panels. If they're wrong, why can't you be?

Must still be Tueday.

[ManofTheAtom]

fact: a glider is a type of airplane, and it doesn't have a turbine engine.

Fact: Gliders are irrelevant to the discussion.

Fact: That, no matter how many times I say it, will never sink in.

This is in direct opposition to your statement that turbines make airplanes fly.

I even quoted the damn thing, and u couldn't be bothered to read it the second time.

If the turbines don't keep it up maybe it's the fairies inside the wings.

Just to repeat it, I didn't say that the turbines make the plane fly. I said that they keep it afloat so it doesn't fall down and also ADDED that the process is COMPLEX.

You decided to latch on to a piece of the post and ignore the rest of it.

I never claimed that the turbines were the end all and be all of what makes a plane work, I said it was part of a complex PROCESS.

But you can't accept that, it's easier for you to act like an *SQUEE*.

[ManofTheAtom]

Tell you what: Write something worth reading all the way through and I will.

You're beat: You've been proven wrong. All you're doing now is trying to distract from that fact with posturing and insults. Sack up and admit it then drive on. There are comics out there where the stupid people put different posters on the walls in different panels. If they're wrong, why can't you be?

Must still be Tueday.

If planes don't need turbines to stay up so they don't crash, why the *SQUEE* have them?

You probably think that airplanes get shot in the air with giant slingshots.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Nope, planes don't need turbines to fly, but they do fly a lot better with them.

No amount of attempted tactical redefinition or dissimilation will counter that.

The analogy was what makes a plane stay airborne so it doesn't fall to the ground.

A glider, because it lacks an engine, CAN'T stay airborne unless it uses hot air winds to push itself up.

An airplane accomplishes the same thing with a turbine, making it less dependant on hot air (which most people on this thread seem to have in ABUNDANCE).

That's what keeps going over your head.

Gliders, since they lack turbines and would fall to the ground unless they can ride hot air winds (or vents, I forget the right word there), fall to the ground.

Airplanes with turbines DON'T.

See how simple that ways?

If an airplane has a turbine, it's less likely to fall to the ground (unless, say, the turbine were to fail).

Maybe if I used pixies as an alegory for what a turbine does it be easier for you to grasp... or maybe not, maybe it's easier to be an *SQUEE*.

God, I hope this thread doesn't get deleted.

Ok so you had some pixie-dust, and now you don't seem to understand how and why an airplane stays in the air.

But you are wrong and would die before admitting it, so it is pretty funny reading along as you try to squirm out of it when a simple "heh" would have sufficed.

So, how come aircraft can function in winter or at the poles?

[ManofTheAtom]

Nope, planes don't need turbines to fly, but they do fly a lot better with them.

No amount of attempted tactical redefinition or dissimilation will counter that.

The analogy was what makes a plane stay airborne so it doesn't fall to the ground.

A glider, because it lacks an engine, CAN'T stay airborne unless it uses hot air winds to push itself up.

An airplane accomplishes the same thing with a turbine, making it less dependant on hot air (which most people on this thread seem to have in ABUNDANCE).

That's what keeps going over your head.

Gliders, since they lack turbines and would fall to the ground unless they can ride hot air winds (or vents, I forget the right word there), fall to the ground.

Airplanes with turbines DON'T.

See how simple that ways?

If an airplane has a turbine, it's less likely to fall to the ground (unless, say, the turbine were to fail).

Maybe if I used pixies as an alegory for what a turbine does it be easier for you to grasp... or maybe not, maybe it's easier to be an *SQUEE*.

God, I hope this thread doesn't get deleted.

Ok so you had some pixie-dust, and now you don't seem to understand how and why an airplane stays in the air.

But you are wrong and would die before admitting it, so it is pretty funny reading along as you try to squirm out of it when a simple "heh" would have sufficed.

So, how come aircraft can function in winter or at the poles?

And again, it's easier for you to be a condescending *SQUEE*.

I would have been more inclined to accept that I was wrong from the beginning if it weren't your your predisposition to act like an *SQUEE*.

I said that planes use turbines so they don't fall to the ground and the answer I got was to be insulted, so I'm insulting back, and the more insulted I am the more I'll insult you.

That's how it works (and you know this).

[X-O HoboJoe]

Tell you what: Write something worth reading all the way through and I will.

You're beat: You've been proven wrong. All you're doing now is trying to distract from that fact with posturing and insults. Sack up and admit it then drive on. There are comics out there where the stupid people put different posters on the walls in different panels. If they're wrong, why can't you be?

Must still be Tueday.

If planes don't need turbines to stay up so they don't crash, why the *SQUEE* have them?

You probably think that airplanes get shot in the air with giant slingshots.

Joining the Navy Reserve out of HS for the GI Bill: 6 years of 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer.
Under-grad degree: 4 years, ~$50k
Grad-degree: 4 years, more than ~$50k
Getting called a stupid *SQUEE* by some semi-literate irate fanboy that still lives in his parents' basement in Mexico City: Priceless.

Some things in life make sense: For everything else, there's MOTA.

[greg]

Quick summary...

Dude1: All X have Y.

Dude2: No they don't.

Dude1: You're a *SQUEE*

-----------------------

Does anyone want this thread back on topic?
Because it's been a LONG TIME
since this topic was about Harada.

[Dr. Solar]

I actually have some thoughts I'd like to share about the Harada story...

Can we all call truce and pat each other on the back and say,"heh, that was a good one"??

[greg]

I actually have some thoughts I'd like to share about the Harada story...

Your turn at bat.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Nope, planes don't need turbines to fly, but they do fly a lot better with them.

No amount of attempted tactical redefinition or dissimilation will counter that.

The analogy was what makes a plane stay airborne so it doesn't fall to the ground.

A glider, because it lacks an engine, CAN'T stay airborne unless it uses hot air winds to push itself up.

An airplane accomplishes the same thing with a turbine, making it less dependant on hot air (which most people on this thread seem to have in ABUNDANCE).

That's what keeps going over your head.

Gliders, since they lack turbines and would fall to the ground unless they can ride hot air winds (or vents, I forget the right word there), fall to the ground.

Airplanes with turbines DON'T.

See how simple that ways?

If an airplane has a turbine, it's less likely to fall to the ground (unless, say, the turbine were to fail).

Maybe if I used pixies as an alegory for what a turbine does it be easier for you to grasp... or maybe not, maybe it's easier to be an *SQUEE*.

God, I hope this thread doesn't get deleted.

Ok so you had some pixie-dust, and now you don't seem to understand how and why an airplane stays in the air.

But you are wrong and would die before admitting it, so it is pretty funny reading along as you try to squirm out of it when a simple "heh" would have sufficed.

So, how come aircraft can function in winter or at the poles?

And again, it's easier for you to be a condescending *SQUEE*.

I would have been more inclined to accept that I was wrong from the beginning if it weren't your your predisposition to act like an *SQUEE*.

I said that planes use turbines so they don't fall to the ground and the answer I got was to be insulted, so I'm insulting back, and the more insulted I am the more I'll insult you.

That's how it works (and you know this).

Nope, I was trying to point out in my first several posts in this topic how an airplane stays in the air. Any tone or emotion applied to those posts is purely your own (And if you're going to say that I shouldn't post in one of "your" threads, then maybe you'll get what's way overdue.)

But hey, insult away if you think it helps -- Is anyone else reading this willing to defend MOTA's view on airplanes? Anyone?

If not, I've got two sticks of wood and some string here.

Oops, posted before I read the re-track.

[X-O HoboJoe]

I actually have some thoughts I'd like to share about the Harada story...

Can we all call truce and pat each other on the back and say,"heh, that was a good one"??

Only if MOTA will share some of that killer dust with me.

[ManofTheAtom]

I actually have some thoughts I'd like to share about the Harada story...

Can we all call truce and pat each other on the back and say,"heh, that was a good one"??

That depends, are you done being an *SQUEE*? You're the one that initially derailed the thread with your insulting post.

[ManofTheAtom]

Just clarify something first.

If turbines aren't what keep the airplanes up, then why do they fall down when the Gremlins destroy them?

Oh, it must be that Gremlins eat the fairies that live in the turbines and that's why the planes crash.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Just clarify something first.

If turbines aren't what keep the airplanes up, then why do they fall down when the Gremlins destroy them?

Oh, it must be that Gremlins eat the fairies that live in the turbines and that's why the planes crash.

I don't care who ya are that's funny right there on several levels.

[Dr. Solar]

That depends, are you done being an *SQUEE*? You're the one that initially derailed the thread with your insulting post.

I apologize for being insulting. I was frustrated at you because of what you wrote, and what I wrote came out the way it did because of that.

What's done is done, water under the bridge and all that, and apologies.

[Dr. Solar]

Back on track:

I've been meaning to wait till I am completely done with re-reading the Harby hardcover, but hopefully this will get some GOOD, INTERESTING discussion going on.

This was prompted by a chat session the other night. Dino was in there, and we talked about the new story a bit. He said Shooter was very exact about what he wrote, and meant for it to relate very closely to events that happen in 0-7. So I started re-reading.

One thing I am fairly certain of is that Harada made his wife come with him when he left home when he was 5 and she was 11. It doesn't really make sense for an 11 year old girl to run away with a 5 year old. One thing Shooter was good at was having people respond realistically, and it just isn't realistic for her to do that.

Now, in the story, we see her wake up and hold a knife up like she is going to kill Harada in his sleep.

In Harbinger 1, Pete uses his powers to make Kris and Faith settle down so they can all fall asleep. When he pulls out of Kris's mind, the conversation goes something like this:

From memory:

Kris: You were in my mind again. You know that is evil, right?
Pete: Yes.
Kris: Good. Because if you ever do it again, you better make sure that it lasts forever because otherwise I will kill you in your sleep.

Kris is threatening to do exactly what it is that Harada's wife is threatening to do to him.

I thought this was an interesting parallel.

I mean to look into this more, and was gonna wait till I was all done with my re-read to post this stuff up, but here it is.

[ManofTheAtom]

Interesting observation

[Chiclo]

So... does Faith Herbert have a turbine?

Would that make her a Sikh?

[ManofTheAtom]

So... does Faith Herbert have a turbine?

Would that make her a Sikh?

More examples of an *SQUEE*...

[X-O HoboJoe]

So... does Faith Herbert have a turbine?

Would that make her a Sikh?

She must be eating a lot of beans.

Who's Sikh now?

One thing I always wondered about the power of Psi-powered flight (that any of the stronger TK's and Zeph used) was: If they're using their minds to create a pushing force against the earth, why wouldn't they have a lot harder time accelerating in a direction that's not vertical? Gotta push a lot more air to get the same effect as shoving off against a solid mass. Also, is it harder for them to fly over water?

OK, not like you didn't know I was a geek . . .

[X-O HoboJoe]

So... does Faith Herbert have a turbine?

Would that make her a Sikh?

More examples of an *SQUEE*...

Memo: Fight's over, move along . . .