The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I highly recommend you watch this if you haven't seen it before.
[URL]http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm[/URL]
or
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Seems pretty feasible to me.
[URL]http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm[/URL]
or
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Seems pretty feasible to me.
Page:
And where would the driver sit?!?
Well if they were completely solid they wouldnt be able to fly would they? You know what i ment. They have to have hollow space, because if that space were solid material, theyd have a hard time taking off due to the weight, fuel consumption would be too high etc...
ShortyUK wrote:
> Planes are majorly hollow. If they werent, theyd be too heavy to fly,
> duh.
Don't want to urinate on your Cornflakes...but....
> Planes are majorly hollow. If they werent, theyd be too heavy to fly,
> duh.
Don't want to urinate on your Cornflakes...but....
Pandaemonium wrote:
> ShortyUK wrote:
> im naturally rubbish at
> English, im more of a logic/maths kinda person.
>
> Huh? So to be good at one automatically stops you from being
> proficient in the other? What absolute rubbish.
No it doesnt stop you from being proficient in the other, you just assumed that. I did not say what you just stated. Jeez. Im just better at those sorts of things to do with patterns, memory, logic etc than doing essays and writing stuff. I never said i can do one because i cant do the other.
> ShortyUK wrote:
> im naturally rubbish at
> English, im more of a logic/maths kinda person.
>
> Huh? So to be good at one automatically stops you from being
> proficient in the other? What absolute rubbish.
No it doesnt stop you from being proficient in the other, you just assumed that. I did not say what you just stated. Jeez. Im just better at those sorts of things to do with patterns, memory, logic etc than doing essays and writing stuff. I never said i can do one because i cant do the other.
Very_Metal wrote:
> Light wrote:
> ShortyUK wrote:
>
>
> As for idiot opinions on fuel, wreckage...Its called "common
> sense", any joe bloggs with two brain cells can figure out what
> happens when a plane crashes, and even if there/im wrong, i would
> like to see you give a correct answer, because i doubt your no
> chemical analysis expert yourself either. So just calm down and be
> quiet, and lets leave it at that, ok?
>
> Is that the same common sense that led you to declare that airplanes
> fly because they're hollow?
>
> owned.
What? I never said they fly because there hollow you retard. I said that there is less wreckage than you would think because planes have alot of hollow space in them.
> Light wrote:
> ShortyUK wrote:
>
>
> As for idiot opinions on fuel, wreckage...Its called "common
> sense", any joe bloggs with two brain cells can figure out what
> happens when a plane crashes, and even if there/im wrong, i would
> like to see you give a correct answer, because i doubt your no
> chemical analysis expert yourself either. So just calm down and be
> quiet, and lets leave it at that, ok?
>
> Is that the same common sense that led you to declare that airplanes
> fly because they're hollow?
>
> owned.
What? I never said they fly because there hollow you retard. I said that there is less wreckage than you would think because planes have alot of hollow space in them.
Clever peoples. Arguing!
NOO!
NOO!
Haven't read any of the posts, so I don't know whats currently being discussed, but I saw a program a while ago that dispelled any conspiracy stories about 9/11 and the Pentagon.
Light wrote:
> Ah, literal interpretations of what has been said! Always fun...
So how should I have interpreted it then?
> If the discussion had stayed completely objective, would that have
> left any room for Paradox's mooted "conspiracy theorist point of
> view"? I'd say not, but I'd be interested to hear what you
> think.
Why not? You can look at the "evidence" on this blokes web-site objectively. Whether he was objective when he put it together or not is a different matter.
What started of meaning to be a lighthearted thread (or so I imagine), seems to have turned out to be something else entirely.
> I'm going to regret picking you up on the "What you should
> do" thing aren't I? Everything is gonna be "my humble
> opinion" from now. Ah well; you get what you pay for I suppose.
Yep, you probably will. And yes, you usually do :-)
> I'm not sure I follow this; are you saying that there is just as much
> of an onus to exercise diplomacy when one has a strong emotional
> reaction to a topic?
No, what I mean is the "exercising diplomacy" argument shouldn't be used to avoid discussing certain topics.
> Ah, literal interpretations of what has been said! Always fun...
So how should I have interpreted it then?
> If the discussion had stayed completely objective, would that have
> left any room for Paradox's mooted "conspiracy theorist point of
> view"? I'd say not, but I'd be interested to hear what you
> think.
Why not? You can look at the "evidence" on this blokes web-site objectively. Whether he was objective when he put it together or not is a different matter.
What started of meaning to be a lighthearted thread (or so I imagine), seems to have turned out to be something else entirely.
> I'm going to regret picking you up on the "What you should
> do" thing aren't I? Everything is gonna be "my humble
> opinion" from now. Ah well; you get what you pay for I suppose.
Yep, you probably will. And yes, you usually do :-)
> I'm not sure I follow this; are you saying that there is just as much
> of an onus to exercise diplomacy when one has a strong emotional
> reaction to a topic?
No, what I mean is the "exercising diplomacy" argument shouldn't be used to avoid discussing certain topics.
Your Honour wrote:
> No he doesn't claim to be full of common sense.
> In this thread I have seen no one say "Some bloke down the pub
> told me it was a conspiracy, therefore it must be so." I have
> seen people talkng about and discussing a web-site put together by
> some bloke who none of us know.
Ah, literal interpretations of what has been said! Always fun...
> I'm not telling anyone what to do. Perhaps I should have expanded on
> that comment, so here goes:
>
> When discussing something like this it is, in my humble view, best to
> stay completely objective about this. I would imagine, though could
> be wrong, that it would be very difficult to stay objective if a
> friend / family member had been involved. I.e. "The fact that
> you know someone who has been involved in something like this
> shouldn't mean that you can blast everyone else's thoughts out of the
> water and call them all stupid.
If the discussion had stayed completely objective, would that have left any room for Paradox's mooted "conspiracy theorist point of view"? I'd say not, but I'd be interested to hear what you think.
To be honest, as far as I can see Paradox and Goatboy sorted it out between themselves, which begs the question "So why exactly shouldn't someone react however they want?"
>
> True. Yet I have not branded anyone's comments as invalid. Some
> people on here have and, in my humble opinion as I don't like to tell
> people what to do, they shouldn't have.
I'm going to regret picking you up on the "What you should do" thing aren't I? Everything is gonna be "my humble opinion" from now. Ah well; you get what you pay for I suppose.
>
>
> And regardless of that, doesn't it mean that perhaps a little
> diplomacy or at least taste should be exercised?
>
> Yes, by all parties. However, excercising taste and decency
> shouldn't mean that topics like this cannot be discussed. Otherwise,
> we'd never get around to discussing anyhting!
I'm not sure I follow this; are you saying that there is just as much of an onus to exercise diplomacy when one has a strong emotional reaction to a topic?
> No he doesn't claim to be full of common sense.
> In this thread I have seen no one say "Some bloke down the pub
> told me it was a conspiracy, therefore it must be so." I have
> seen people talkng about and discussing a web-site put together by
> some bloke who none of us know.
Ah, literal interpretations of what has been said! Always fun...
> I'm not telling anyone what to do. Perhaps I should have expanded on
> that comment, so here goes:
>
> When discussing something like this it is, in my humble view, best to
> stay completely objective about this. I would imagine, though could
> be wrong, that it would be very difficult to stay objective if a
> friend / family member had been involved. I.e. "The fact that
> you know someone who has been involved in something like this
> shouldn't mean that you can blast everyone else's thoughts out of the
> water and call them all stupid.
If the discussion had stayed completely objective, would that have left any room for Paradox's mooted "conspiracy theorist point of view"? I'd say not, but I'd be interested to hear what you think.
To be honest, as far as I can see Paradox and Goatboy sorted it out between themselves, which begs the question "So why exactly shouldn't someone react however they want?"
>
> True. Yet I have not branded anyone's comments as invalid. Some
> people on here have and, in my humble opinion as I don't like to tell
> people what to do, they shouldn't have.
I'm going to regret picking you up on the "What you should do" thing aren't I? Everything is gonna be "my humble opinion" from now. Ah well; you get what you pay for I suppose.
>
>
> And regardless of that, doesn't it mean that perhaps a little
> diplomacy or at least taste should be exercised?
>
> Yes, by all parties. However, excercising taste and decency
> shouldn't mean that topics like this cannot be discussed. Otherwise,
> we'd never get around to discussing anyhting!
I'm not sure I follow this; are you saying that there is just as much of an onus to exercise diplomacy when one has a strong emotional reaction to a topic?
Light wrote:
> Does he claim to be packed full of common sense? Does he claim to
> know about things on the basis that a bloke down the pub said it to
> him? If he does, then to be honest I'd regard him as fair game.
No he doesn't claim to be full of common sense.
In this thread I have seen no one say "Some bloke down the pub told me it was a conspiracy, therefore it must be so." I have seen people talkng about and discussing a web-site put together by some bloke who none of us know.
> Heh. For someone who objects to being told what he should think or
> do, you do an awful lot of it yourself. That's twice in one week
> now.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. Perhaps I should have expanded on that comment, so here goes:
When discussing something like this it is, in my humble view, best to stay completely objective about this. I would imagine, though could be wrong, that it would be very difficult to stay objective if a friend / family member had been involved. I.e. "The fact that you know someone who has been involved in something like this shouldn't mean that you can blast everyone else's thoughts out of the water and call them all stupid.
> People are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. Just because
> this topic is a little close to the heart for some shouldn't mean
> that others views and/or opinions are suddenly invalid.
>
> True enough. Nor does it mean that if someone gets as angry as hell
> about it, what they say should be invalid, no?
True. Yet I have not branded anyone's comments as invalid. Some people on here have and, in my humble opinion as I don't like to tell people what to do, they shouldn't have.
> And regardless of that, doesn't it mean that perhaps a little
> diplomacy or at least taste should be exercised?
Yes, by all parties. However, excercising taste and decency shouldn't mean that topics like this cannot be discussed. Otherwise, we'd never get around to discussing anyhting!
If this shambolic thread can actually be classed as a discussion :-)
> Does he claim to be packed full of common sense? Does he claim to
> know about things on the basis that a bloke down the pub said it to
> him? If he does, then to be honest I'd regard him as fair game.
No he doesn't claim to be full of common sense.
In this thread I have seen no one say "Some bloke down the pub told me it was a conspiracy, therefore it must be so." I have seen people talkng about and discussing a web-site put together by some bloke who none of us know.
> Heh. For someone who objects to being told what he should think or
> do, you do an awful lot of it yourself. That's twice in one week
> now.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. Perhaps I should have expanded on that comment, so here goes:
When discussing something like this it is, in my humble view, best to stay completely objective about this. I would imagine, though could be wrong, that it would be very difficult to stay objective if a friend / family member had been involved. I.e. "The fact that you know someone who has been involved in something like this shouldn't mean that you can blast everyone else's thoughts out of the water and call them all stupid.
> People are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. Just because
> this topic is a little close to the heart for some shouldn't mean
> that others views and/or opinions are suddenly invalid.
>
> True enough. Nor does it mean that if someone gets as angry as hell
> about it, what they say should be invalid, no?
True. Yet I have not branded anyone's comments as invalid. Some people on here have and, in my humble opinion as I don't like to tell people what to do, they shouldn't have.
> And regardless of that, doesn't it mean that perhaps a little
> diplomacy or at least taste should be exercised?
Yes, by all parties. However, excercising taste and decency shouldn't mean that topics like this cannot be discussed. Otherwise, we'd never get around to discussing anyhting!
If this shambolic thread can actually be classed as a discussion :-)
Page: