Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155149 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-13 17:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-12-15 22:18 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 708 — 46 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-12-13 17:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-12-15 05:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-15 07:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 12:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-15 17:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-15 11:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 14:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-16 18:02 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:58 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-15 18:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 14:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 16:16 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-15 18:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-15 19:45 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 23:34 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-16 11:58 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 14:48 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 14:08 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:16 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:02 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:04 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:36 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 08:04 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 16:51 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-22 07:37 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-12-17 16:17 -0500
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 17:03 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-18 13:46 +0000
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:16 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:20 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:43 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:12 -0600
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:41 -0800
Re: Star Trek was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 15:00 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 12:42 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-15 13:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 15:07 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-15 15:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 11:28 -0600
Re: Viet Nam was For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-16 12:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-16 18:09 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 19:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:02 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:58 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 17:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-17 23:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-18 08:02 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 12:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-18 12:24 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 13:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:29 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 16:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-18 13:19 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-18 23:16 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-18 23:49 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 01:47 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-20 10:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:24 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-19 13:35 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 14:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 15:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-19 17:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-19 10:06 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:35 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-19 14:44 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 11:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 13:40 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 14:04 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 20:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:47 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-19 10:05 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 15:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-12-19 15:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 17:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-21 14:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 16:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-19 14:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 18:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-21 14:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 09:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 20:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 13:02 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-22 16:05 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-23 07:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 18:57 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-21 21:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:01 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-23 08:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2015-12-23 11:04 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 19:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-20 10:10 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-18 17:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 11:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-17 15:00 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-17 13:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 16:46 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-18 08:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-18 19:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-18 21:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-18 13:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-19 04:24 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-18 16:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-18 19:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-19 07:55 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-19 07:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-19 11:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:33 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 19:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-20 10:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-20 10:10 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-19 07:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-19 09:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-19 16:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-20 14:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-20 17:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-20 17:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 10:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 13:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-21 15:05 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:36 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-21 21:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 10:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:01 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:44 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 23:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-22 15:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 00:13 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-23 17:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-24 10:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 11:18 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 17:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 09:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-29 11:39 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 12:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-30 00:24 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-29 17:18 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 11:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 07:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-30 08:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-30 09:23 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-31 06:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 16:41 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 09:50 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 21:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-03 15:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 05:19 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 21:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 11:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-01-01 10:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 17:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:36 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 13:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 13:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 20:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 22:41 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-01 11:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 06:00 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 18:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-30 12:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 10:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:14 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 11:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-30 17:55 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-30 23:09 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:04 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 16:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 07:16 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-31 11:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-12-31 09:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 20:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-01 14:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 05:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:52 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-02 16:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:41 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:49 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:07 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:49 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 11:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 12:40 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 15:18 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-01 08:02 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 22:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 21:54 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 11:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-01 12:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 08:50 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 09:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:02 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 14:57 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-30 11:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 16:14 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 00:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 07:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 11:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 18:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 15:20 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:51 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 01:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 20:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 15:34 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 15:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 18:09 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 07:17 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 23:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:06 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 17:20 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 05:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 04:52 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 10:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 10:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:07 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 01:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 09:52 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-01 15:09 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:43 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-31 10:50 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-31 06:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-12-31 09:08 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-31 17:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 08:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 14:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-02 05:46 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-31 19:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-31 22:30 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 15:42 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-01 14:36 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-01 17:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-02 22:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-03 17:29 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 05:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:33 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:07 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 22:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 10:05 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-20 11:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "James Green" <667755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 05:51 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-20 17:54 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "James Green" <667755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:52 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-21 07:15 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-21 11:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-21 16:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:52 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-21 18:12 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 08:02 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 13:23 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 12:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-22 17:07 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-22 18:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-22 18:59 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-23 15:13 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-23 06:22 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 14:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 16:40 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 03:57 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-23 21:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-24 05:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-24 08:13 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-24 09:36 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 08:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 12:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-25 13:05 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:30 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 23:33 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-25 19:48 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 16:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-26 01:21 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 19:12 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:06 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-26 09:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:11 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-26 04:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 07:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-26 13:20 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 19:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 11:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 04:54 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:05 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 11:48 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 18:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 12:01 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 21:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 06:43 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-28 11:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:08 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 01:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-28 22:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 05:17 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-29 14:45 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:48 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 10:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:46 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-29 21:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:59 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 12:50 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:25 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-30 17:38 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:43 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 05:24 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 11:55 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 17:12 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-26 19:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 15:33 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 00:22 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-25 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:42 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-24 11:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-25 06:33 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:47 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-27 07:51 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 16:15 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 16:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 17:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 22:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-28 11:45 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-27 19:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-27 21:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-28 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 18:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 19:17 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 23:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 21:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-28 05:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 06:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-28 20:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 13:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 10:57 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 11:04 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 22:54 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 16:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 18:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-29 19:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:39 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 18:01 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:42 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:12 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:23 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-31 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:42 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 05:04 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:34 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:07 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 14:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:53 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 10:27 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:59 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-04 07:16 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-05 03:13 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-05 09:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:51 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-29 17:58 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:53 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:34 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:25 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 15:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:37 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 16:37 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 19:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:31 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:47 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:58 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 19:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 12:55 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:28 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-31 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:17 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:23 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:46 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:30 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:53 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:57 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 05:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 05:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-01 10:53 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 11:03 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 06:25 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-01 11:29 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:54 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-01 17:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-02 06:50 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-02 13:05 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-02 13:15 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 02:45 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:28 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:52 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:40 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-02 08:29 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 15:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 02:39 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 12:18 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-03 17:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-03 20:03 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 19:52 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-03 19:57 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-03 21:46 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 12:54 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-05 03:20 -0400
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-05 15:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 16:43 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:41 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:15 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:32 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 12:05 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:25 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 12:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 18:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-04 04:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 13:11 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-05 01:22 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-04 16:46 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-05 15:30 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hda <agent700@ay.invalid> - 2016-02-04 14:17 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 19:34 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:21 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:03 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 12:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:56 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-03 17:41 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:49 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:13 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:09 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:43 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 22:57 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 05:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-05 02:44 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-05 15:36 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 16:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 16:59 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 18:36 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 16:04 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:11 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:37 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:35 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-03 11:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:36 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 18:26 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-02 22:19 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 08:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-03 17:31 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 01:06 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 20:59 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:33 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:32 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 21:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:44 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 10:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 07:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 05:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-03 14:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:55 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 13:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:07 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 19:34 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-05 09:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-05 17:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-05 20:39 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 15:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 06:52 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 18:16 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:24 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-03 09:59 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 16:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-03 21:11 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 13:49 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 06:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:41 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:18 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 10:47 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-04 13:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 15:24 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 04:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:02 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 20:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 15:22 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:48 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-04 15:43 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-03 17:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 14:45 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-03 20:41 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-03 21:13 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:19 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-02 17:42 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:56 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:28 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-30 10:54 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:22 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:25 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 05:20 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:49 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 16:31 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 12:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-31 05:44 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 20:10 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:46 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:27 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 21:56 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 08:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:27 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 16:48 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:26 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:15 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-27 22:59 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 16:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 17:14 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-28 13:21 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:51 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-29 04:50 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-29 17:08 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-29 09:51 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-29 11:12 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:20 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 14:32 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-24 04:10 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-23 09:44 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 13:43 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-23 18:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 18:49 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-23 20:53 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-23 19:17 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-23 20:17 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:34 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 11:22 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-23 17:38 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-25 16:36 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 14:19 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:49 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:41 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-26 08:30 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 18:11 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 22:45 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Orange" <oq7755@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:39 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-10 14:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-23 11:07 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 15:01 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-03 12:01 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 19:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 19:51 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 03:59 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-03 23:14 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:47 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:31 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-04 10:11 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 05:10 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 09:30 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:38 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-08 18:42 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-31 17:58 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-01 06:03 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 07:21 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-30 17:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-24 09:55 +0000
Re: Hitler hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:08 -0800
Re: Hitler mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 16:23 +0000
Re: Hitler Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 11:07 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-12-22 07:58 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 10:47 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:22 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 16:04 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:00 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-22 18:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:46 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-24 10:53 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-12-24 13:08 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 05:32 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-29 17:37 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-22 10:42 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:20 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-22 16:03 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-12-23 14:30 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 17:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-23 14:28 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-22 12:45 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 13:43 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:18 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-21 13:26 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-21 10:09 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) bbreynolds <bbreynolds@aol.com> - 2015-12-20 18:00 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-21 10:53 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-21 14:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-21 12:06 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-21 16:57 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:10 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-21 17:35 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-22 07:14 -0800
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 11:15 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-22 17:06 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-22 19:35 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-23 03:39 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-23 10:52 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-23 11:00 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-23 21:19 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-23 11:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-23 19:26 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-12-23 14:08 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 21:04 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-25 11:20 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-25 14:56 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:38 +1100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-22 16:25 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-22 14:44 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-23 11:18 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-22 13:29 +0100
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2015-12-21 07:33 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:17 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-18 19:47 -0500
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-18 23:39 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-21 14:55 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:56 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-17 16:50 -0600
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-17 23:21 +0000
Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-15 22:18 +0100
Page 28 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 26 27 [28] 29 30 … 36 Next page →
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 18:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <87k2mljpne.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #158735 |
Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: >>The Air France crew were behind the airplane. That's the end of it. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Whatever that means. How about explaining instead of try to cut > communication? It means the crew is reacting to what the airplane just DID, rather than staying "ahead of the airplane" and anticipating what it will DO NEXT based on conditions. It's beaten into student pilots from the moment they pull out the chocks. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 14:24 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dhfuimFdg6tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158754 |
"Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message news:87k2mljpne.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... > Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> writes: >>>The Air France crew were behind the airplane. That's the end of it. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Whatever that means. How about explaining instead of try to cut >> communication? > > It means the crew is reacting to what the airplane just DID, rather than > staying "ahead of the airplane" and anticipating what it will DO NEXT > based on conditions. But wasn't the problem with AF 447. The plane didn't do anything special. The problem was what the pilots did when the autopilot gave up because it couldn't make sense of what data it had available from the sensors. > It's beaten into student pilots from the moment they pull out the > chocks. > > --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #158665 |
J. Clarke wrote: > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says... >> >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb er.org... >> > >> > [snip...] [snip...] >> > [snip...] >> > >> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are currently not >> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors that work >> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car that >> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain is >> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of us >> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time >> > before >> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. >> > Heck, >> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most want >> > the >> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. >> > >> >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to you". >> >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in the >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting information from >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then the >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently did >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they had >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. > > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is > experience a rather severe malfunction. > > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew > that has ever existed. I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the humans something to do. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 09:59 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n8t80c$nko$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158699 |
On 03-Feb-16 08:25, jmfbahciv wrote: > J. Clarke wrote: >> The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >> Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >> experience a rather severe malfunction. Indeed; flying under normal conditions can be learned in a few hours, especially with modern aircraft that do nearly everything for you. When there's an accident, investigators invariably find a "chain" of problems leading up to it. That is why the vast majority of pilot training is learning to deal with every possible problem quickly and competently to prevent those chains from forming. >> The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation >> that use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. >> ... > > I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? Among pilots, yes. The official terminology would be something like "failure to maintain situational awareness". In fact, this is now either the main cause or main contributing factor in virtually all accidents. As to _why_ the pilot lost awareness, that is usually due to sheer boredom for commercial pilots and "get-there-itis" for private pilots. You won't find either in the official reports, but every pilot knows. > I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the > humans something to do. There is only so much make-work that can be done when you're flying straight and level for hours on end, with the only interruption being the occasional hand-off from one ATC zone to the next. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 16:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <Ucqsy.396481$983.111479@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #158701 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >On 03-Feb-16 08:25, jmfbahciv wrote: >> J. Clarke wrote: >>> The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >>> Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >>> experience a rather severe malfunction. > >Indeed; flying under normal conditions can be learned in a few hours, >especially with modern aircraft that do nearly everything for you. > >When there's an accident, investigators invariably find a "chain" of >problems leading up to it. That is why the vast majority of pilot >training is learning to deal with every possible problem quickly and >competently to prevent those chains from forming. > >>> The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation >>> that use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. >>> ... >> >> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? > >Among pilots, yes. The official terminology would be something like >"failure to maintain situational awareness". In fact, this is now >either the main cause or main contributing factor in virtually all >accidents. In accident reports, you'll see this referred to as CRM[*] failure. [*] Crew/Cockpit Resource Managment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 21:11 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <ch3aoc-ap.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #158701 |
In article <n8t80c$nko$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >On 03-Feb-16 08:25, jmfbahciv wrote: >> J. Clarke wrote: >>> The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >>> Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >>> experience a rather severe malfunction. > >Indeed; flying under normal conditions can be learned in a few hours, >especially with modern aircraft that do nearly everything for you. > >When there's an accident, investigators invariably find a "chain" of >problems leading up to it. That is why the vast majority of pilot >training is learning to deal with every possible problem quickly and >competently to prevent those chains from forming. > >>> The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation >>> that use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. >>> ... >> >> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? > >Among pilots, yes. The official terminology would be something like >"failure to maintain situational awareness". In fact, this is now >either the main cause or main contributing factor in virtually all >accidents. > >As to _why_ the pilot lost awareness, that is usually due to sheer >boredom for commercial pilots and "get-there-itis" for private pilots. >You won't find either in the official reports, but every pilot knows. > >> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >> humans something to do. > >There is only so much make-work that can be done when you're flying >straight and level for hours on end, with the only interruption being >the occasional hand-off from one ATC zone to the next. I know that many cross-atlantic pilots chase jetstreams on the great circle route, especially over Greenland. The object is to save time and fuel. I was a little surprised to hear that the Air France flight was not doing anything like this, just went for a flight level and a heading. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 13:49 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dhfsi3Fd2msU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158755 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:ch3aoc-ap.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <n8t80c$nko$1@dont-email.me>, > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >>On 03-Feb-16 08:25, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>> The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >>>> Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >>>> experience a rather severe malfunction. >> >>Indeed; flying under normal conditions can be learned in a few hours, >>especially with modern aircraft that do nearly everything for you. >> >>When there's an accident, investigators invariably find a "chain" of >>problems leading up to it. That is why the vast majority of pilot >>training is learning to deal with every possible problem quickly and >>competently to prevent those chains from forming. >> >>>> The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation >>>> that use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. >>>> ... >>> >>> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? >> >>Among pilots, yes. The official terminology would be something like >>"failure to maintain situational awareness". In fact, this is now >>either the main cause or main contributing factor in virtually all >>accidents. >> >>As to _why_ the pilot lost awareness, that is usually due to sheer >>boredom for commercial pilots and "get-there-itis" for private pilots. >>You won't find either in the official reports, but every pilot knows. >> >>> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >>> humans something to do. >> >>There is only so much make-work that can be done when you're flying >>straight and level for hours on end, with the only interruption being >>the occasional hand-off from one ATC zone to the next. > > I know that many cross-atlantic pilots chase jetstreams on the > great circle route, especially over Greenland. > > The object is to save time and fuel. > > I was a little surprised to hear that the Air France flight was not > doing anything like this, just went for a flight level and a heading. That's because it wasn’t anywhere near Greenland and there weren't any jet streams in that area at the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 06:18 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dhf23hF6ot5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158699 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com... > J. Clarke wrote: >> In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says... >>> >>> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb > er.org... >>> > >>> > [snip...] [snip...] >>> > [snip...] >>> > >>> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are currently >>> > not >>> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors that > work >>> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car >>> > that >>> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain is >>> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of us >>> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time >>> > before >>> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. >>> > Heck, >>> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most >>> > want >>> > the >>> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. >>> > >>> >>> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When >>> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to >>> you". >>> >>> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in >>> the >>> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting information > from >>> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then >>> the >>> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently did >>> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they >>> had >>> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive >>> supplementary training to keep them sharp. >> >> The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >> Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >> experience a rather severe malfunction. >> >> The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that >> use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching >> an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best >> dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain >> focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, >> every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot >> fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the >> current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew >> that has ever existed. > > I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? Yep and he is just plain wrong about it there. > I understand the boring part which can be > solved by giving the humans something to do. Just not feasible on the sort of leg that goes that long. And isnt the problem anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 18:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311c5a287c16e270989f35@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158699 |
In article <PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com says... > > J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says... > >> > >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb > er.org... > >> > > >> > [snip...] [snip...] > >> > [snip...] > >> > > >> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are currently not > >> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors that > work > >> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car that > >> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain is > >> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of us > >> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time > >> > before > >> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. > >> > Heck, > >> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most want > >> > the > >> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. > >> > > >> > >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When > >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to you". > >> > >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in the > >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting information > from > >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then the > >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently did > >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they had > >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive > >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. > > > > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. > > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is > > experience a rather severe malfunction. > > > > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that > > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching > > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best > > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain > > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, > > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot > > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the > > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew > > that has ever existed. > > I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? Among pilots, yes. > I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the > humans something to do. The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes them to lose contact with what the airplane is doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 14:18 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dhfu7fFddt1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158746 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.311c5a287c16e270989f35@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com > says... >> >> J. Clarke wrote: >> > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com >> > says... >> >> >> >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb >> er.org... >> >> > >> >> > [snip...] [snip...] >> >> > [snip...] >> >> > >> >> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are >> >> > currently not >> >> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors >> >> > that >> work >> >> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car >> >> > that >> >> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain >> >> > is >> >> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of >> >> > us >> >> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time >> >> > before >> >> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. >> >> > Heck, >> >> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most >> >> > want >> >> > the >> >> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. >> >> > >> >> >> >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When >> >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to >> >> you". >> >> >> >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in >> >> the >> >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting >> >> information >> from >> >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then >> >> the >> >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently >> >> did >> >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they >> >> had >> >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive >> >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. >> > >> > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >> > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >> > experience a rather severe malfunction. >> > >> > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that >> > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching >> > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best >> > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain >> > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, >> > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the >> > autopilot >> > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the >> > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew >> > that has ever existed. >> >> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? > > Among pilots, yes. > >> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >> humans something to do. > > The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes > them to lose contact with what the airplane is doing. No it does not when things are going normally. And when the shit does hit the fan very spectacularly indeed like it did with AF 447 that time, the problem isnt boredom or getting behind the plane, the problem is that its very difficult to decide what the problem is when you can't just look out the window and see what the attitude of the plane is and see that you've managed to put it into a very high nose up attitude and that you have made it stall doing that because you had no airspeed indicators working and didn't realise that you should be flying the plane using the well established unreliable airspeed indication config that has been established for just that reason and works fine when observed. Its not as if the plane had any problem flying before who ever it was pulled the nose right up and caused it to stall, the ONLY problem was the pitots had iced up and there was no indication of airspeed and there was no clear indication of attitude either because it was at night.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <PM00052AF2A14080F5@aca412b3.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #158746 |
J. Clarke wrote: > In article <PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com > says... >> >> J. Clarke wrote: >> > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says... >> >> >> >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb >> er.org... >> >> > >> >> > [snip...] [snip...] >> >> > [snip...] >> >> > >> >> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are currently not >> >> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors that >> work >> >> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car that >> >> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain is >> >> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of us >> >> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time >> >> > before >> >> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. >> >> > Heck, >> >> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most want >> >> > the >> >> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. >> >> > >> >> >> >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When >> >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to you". >> >> >> >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in the >> >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting information >> from >> >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then the >> >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently did >> >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they had >> >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive >> >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. >> > >> > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >> > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >> > experience a rather severe malfunction. >> > >> > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that >> > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching >> > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best >> > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain >> > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, >> > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot >> > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the >> > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew >> > that has ever existed. >> >> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? > > Among pilots, yes. > >> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >> humans something to do. > > The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes them to lose > contact with what the airplane is doing. I understand; dozing off is easy, too. I also suspect that the pilots lose the ability to fly by feel. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 10:47 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <7007bb1b7c6rkinoqukm0bu4u0h7lherdb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #158808 |
On 4 Feb 2016 15:14:50 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >J. Clarke wrote: >> In article <PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com >> says... >>> >>> J. Clarke wrote: >>> > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says... >>> >> >>> >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >> >news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb >>> er.org... >>> >> > >>> >> > [snip...] [snip...] >>> >> > [snip...] >>> >> > >>> >> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are currently >not >>> >> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors that >>> work >>> >> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car >that >>> >> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain is >>> >> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of us >>> >> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time >>> >> > before >>> >> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. >>> >> > Heck, >>> >> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most >want >>> >> > the >>> >> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When >>> >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to >you". >>> >> >>> >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in >the >>> >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting information >>> from >>> >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then >the >>> >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently did >>> >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they >had >>> >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive >>> >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. >>> > >>> > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >>> > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >>> > experience a rather severe malfunction. >>> > >>> > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that >>> > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching >>> > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best >>> > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain >>> > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, >>> > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot >>> > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the >>> > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew >>> > that has ever existed. >>> >>> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? >> >> Among pilots, yes. >> >>> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >>> humans something to do. >> >> The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes them to lose >> contact with what the airplane is doing. > >I understand; dozing off is easy, too. I also suspect that the >pilots lose the ability to fly by feel. > >/BAH Fly by wire isn't used as much as it was. In several of the new jet fighters, the on board computer keeps the pilot from doing things that the aircraft cannot handle. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 05:08 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dhhic6Fq2beU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158818 |
"JimP" <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7007bb1b7c6rkinoqukm0bu4u0h7lherdb@4ax.com... > On 4 Feb 2016 15:14:50 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>J. Clarke wrote: >>> In article <PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com >>> says... >>>> >>>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>> > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com >>>> > says... >>>> >> >>>> >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> >> >>news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb >>>> er.org... >>>> >> > >>>> >> > [snip...] [snip...] >>>> >> > [snip...] >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are >>>> >> > currently >>not >>>> >> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors >>>> >> > that >>>> work >>>> >> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a >>>> >> > car >>that >>>> >> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and >>>> >> > rain is >>>> >> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those >>>> >> > of us >>>> >> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long >>>> >> > time >>>> >> > before >>>> >> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult >>>> >> > conditions. >>>> >> > Heck, >>>> >> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most >>want >>>> >> > the >>>> >> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When >>>> >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set >>>> >> to >>you". >>>> >> >>>> >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 >>>> >> in >>the >>>> >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting >>>> >> information >>>> from >>>> >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So >>>> >> then >>the >>>> >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently >>>> >> did >>>> >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because >>>> >> they >>had >>>> >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* >>>> >> receive >>>> >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. >>>> > >>>> > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >>>> > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >>>> > experience a rather severe malfunction. >>>> > >>>> > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that >>>> > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. >>>> > Watching >>>> > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best >>>> > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to >>>> > remain >>>> > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a >>>> > time, >>>> > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the >>>> > autopilot >>>> > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the >>>> > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew >>>> > that has ever existed. >>>> >>>> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? >>> >>> Among pilots, yes. >>> >>>> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >>>> humans something to do. >>> >>> The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes them to lose >>> contact with what the airplane is doing. >> >>I understand; dozing off is easy, too. I also suspect that the >>pilots lose the ability to fly by feel. > Fly by wire isn't used as much as it was. It is in fact used a lot more than it ever was. > In several of the new jet fighters, the on board computer keeps > the pilot from doing things that the aircraft cannot handle. And they are still so deliberately unstable by design that it isnt even possible to fly them manually if there is no computer. They are MUCH too unstable for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 13:50 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n909t8$3lk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158818 |
On 04-Feb-16 10:47, JimP wrote: > On 4 Feb 2016 15:14:50 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> J. Clarke wrote: >>> See.above@aol.com says... >>>> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >>>> humans something to do. >>> >>> The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes them to >>> lose contact with what the airplane is doing. >> >> I understand; dozing off is easy, too. I also suspect that the >> pilots lose the ability to fly by feel. > > Fly by wire isn't used as much as it was. In several of the new jet > fighters, the on board computer keeps the pilot from doing things > that the aircraft cannot handle. What? FBW is essential for modern planes, especially fighters and stealth bombers that are aerodynamically unstable; they're literally impossible to fly without computer assistance. Even airliners have moved to FBW because it saves weight, and they're starting to look at aerodynamically unstable designs too. FBW does remove feedback through the stick and pedals, but sims/games have reproduced that artificially, and I'd expect that to make its way into real aircraft--if it hasn't already. Also, there's serious debate about if/when planes should second-guess their pilots. For instance, should a fighter to stop its pilot from doing a hard maneuver that will bend the airframe when it may make the difference between winning and losing a dogfight? Should AF4590 have stopped its pilots from pulling up too far and stalling when that may have saved hundreds of lives on the ground? At some point, you have to trust the pilot to know if/when operating outside the "safe" limits is the best (i.e. least bad) option. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 15:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <2063929490.476317237.735658.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158846 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 04-Feb-16 10:47, JimP wrote: >> On 4 Feb 2016 15:14:50 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> J. Clarke wrote: >>>> See.above@aol.com says... >>>>> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >>>>> humans something to do. >>>> >>>> The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes them to >>>> lose contact with what the airplane is doing. >>> >>> I understand; dozing off is easy, too. I also suspect that the >>> pilots lose the ability to fly by feel. >> >> Fly by wire isn't used as much as it was. In several of the new jet >> fighters, the on board computer keeps the pilot from doing things >> that the aircraft cannot handle. > > What? FBW is essential for modern planes, especially fighters and > stealth bombers that are aerodynamically unstable; they're literally > impossible to fly without computer assistance. Even airliners have > moved to FBW because it saves weight, and they're starting to look at > aerodynamically unstable designs too. > > FBW does remove feedback through the stick and pedals, but sims/games > have reproduced that artificially, and I'd expect that to make its way > into real aircraft--if it hasn't already. > > Also, there's serious debate about if/when planes should second-guess > their pilots. For instance, should a fighter to stop its pilot from > doing a hard maneuver that will bend the airframe when it may make the > difference between winning and losing a dogfight? Should AF4590 have > stopped its pilots from pulling up too far and stalling when that may > have saved hundreds of lives on the ground? At some point, you have to > trust the pilot to know if/when operating outside the "safe" limits is > the best (i.e. least bad) option. > This is the difference between Boeing and Airbus. Airbus gives the computer override authority and Boeing gives it to the pilots. (AIUI) -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-05 04:47 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <dhhh5sFpo2cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #158808 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052AF2A14080F5@aca412b3.ipt.aol.com... > J. Clarke wrote: >> In article <PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com >> says... >>> >>> J. Clarke wrote: >>> > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com >>> > says... >>> >> >>> >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> >> > news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb >>> er.org... >>> >> > >>> >> > [snip...] [snip...] >>> >> > [snip...] >>> >> > >>> >> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are >>> >> > currently > not >>> >> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors >>> >> > that >>> work >>> >> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car > that >>> >> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain >>> >> > is >>> >> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of >>> >> > us >>> >> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long >>> >> > time >>> >> > before >>> >> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult >>> >> > conditions. >>> >> > Heck, >>> >> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most > want >>> >> > the >>> >> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When >>> >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to > you". >>> >> >>> >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 >>> >> in > the >>> >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting >>> >> information >>> from >>> >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So >>> >> then > the >>> >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently >>> >> did >>> >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because >>> >> they > had >>> >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive >>> >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. >>> > >>> > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. >>> > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is >>> > experience a rather severe malfunction. >>> > >>> > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that >>> > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching >>> > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best >>> > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to >>> > remain >>> > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, >>> > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the >>> > autopilot >>> > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the >>> > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew >>> > that has ever existed. >>> >>> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? >> >> Among pilots, yes. >> >>> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the >>> humans something to do. >> >> The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes them to lose >> contact with what the airplane is doing. > > I understand; dozing off is easy, too. Yeah, there have been plenty of examples of that. That wasn’t the problem with AF 447 tho. > I also suspect that the pilots lose the ability to fly by feel. You can't fly that sort of plane by feel in the dark with no ground lights whatever. That was indeed the problem, because they didn’t follow the proper procedure that specifies how to fly the plane when there is no reliable indication of airspeed, they ended up pulling the nose up so high that the plane stalled and they got even more confused by the fact that the stall warning kept cutting out by design and so it stalled and ended up in in the water because that happened too close to the water to recover from the stall.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 20:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311dbeb6e81bc5ae989f3f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158808 |
In article <PM00052AF2A14080F5@aca412b3.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com says... > > J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <PM00052ADE1672FD71@aca48097.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com > > says... > >> > >> J. Clarke wrote: > >> > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says... > >> >> > >> >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> >> > news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septemb > >> er.org... > >> >> > > >> >> > [snip...] [snip...] > >> >> > [snip...] > >> >> > > >> >> > I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are currently > not > >> >> > good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors that > >> work > >> >> > properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car > that > >> >> > can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain is > >> >> > going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of us > >> >> > looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time > >> >> > before > >> >> > the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. > >> >> > Heck, > >> >> > I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most > want > >> >> > the > >> >> > car to drive itself is in bad weather. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When > >> >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to > you". > >> >> > >> >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in > the > >> >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting information > >> from > >> >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then > the > >> >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently did > >> >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they > had > >> >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive > >> >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. > >> > > >> > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. > >> > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is > >> > experience a rather severe malfunction. > >> > > >> > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that > >> > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching > >> > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best > >> > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain > >> > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, > >> > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot > >> > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the > >> > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew > >> > that has ever existed. > >> > >> I've never heard that term. Is it a common term? > > > > Among pilots, yes. > > > >> I understand the boring part which can be solved by giving the > >> humans something to do. > > > > The problem is the boredom per se, it's that it causes them to lose > > contact with what the airplane is doing. > > I understand; dozing off is easy, too. I also suspect that the > pilots lose the ability to fly by feel. > > /BAH "Feel" per se doesn't exist on modern airliners. The controls are heavily boosted and any control feedback is artificially generated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 15:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <1223516001.476228974.441461.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158665 |
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says... >> >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> [snip...] [snip...] >>> [snip...] >>> >>> I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are currently not >>> good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors that work >>> properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car that >>> can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain is >>> going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of us >>> looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time >>> before >>> the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. >>> Heck, >>> I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most want >>> the >>> car to drive itself is in bad weather. >>> >> >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to you". >> >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in the >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting information from >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then the >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently did >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they had >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. > > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is > experience a rather severe malfunction. > > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew > that has ever existed. > Maybe the autopilot should be programmed to throw in a few jinks and jags to keep the crew on its toes. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 18:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311c5db6f27989b5989f37@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #158740 |
In article <1223516001.476228974.441461.peter_flass- yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > In article <n8r73t$549$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com says... > >> > >> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:1858198680.476048189.607679.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > >>> > >>> [snip...] [snip...] > >>> [snip...] > >>> > >>> I just read an article that dais that self-driving cars are currently not > >>> good in anything but clear dry xonditions. Even getting sensors that work > >>> properly in bad weather is going to be a problem, and getting a car that > >>> can handle icy roads, snow-covered roads, snowstorms, fog, and rain is > >>> going to be a much more difficult one. Unfortunately, for those of us > >>> looking forward to getting a self-driving car it will be a long time > >>> before > >>> the car does even nearly as well as a human in difficult conditions. > >>> Heck, > >>> I enjoy driving when conditions are good myself, the time I'd most want > >>> the > >>> car to drive itself is in bad weather. > >>> > >> > >> But that's when technology works... when conditions are good. When > >> conditions get too bad, technology "returns control of your TV set to you". > >> > >> From my limited understanding of the crash of Air France flight 447 in the > >> Atlantic Ocean: When the "automatic pilot" got conflicting information from > >> its sensors, the auto-pilot just gave up and shut itself off. So then the > >> problem was dumped in the lap of the airplane crew... who evidently did > >> *not* have enough training in handling adverse situations because they had > >> depended too much on the auto-pilot in the past and did *not* receive > >> supplementary training to keep them sharp. > > > > The problem is not that they did not know how to fly the airplane. > > Flying an airplane is simply not all that difficult unless it is > > experience a rather severe malfunction. > > > > The problem is that they were "behind the airplane", a situation that > > use of a modern autopilot pretty much guarantees will exist. Watching > > an autopilot fly a plane is just plain _boring_. With the best > > dedication in the world, very few people can force themselves to remain > > focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, > > every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot > > fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the > > current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew > > that has ever existed. > > > > Maybe the autopilot should be programmed to throw in a few jinks and jags > to keep the crew on its toes. That just makes it an amusement park ride. On the other hand, programmed simulated outages at random intervals might be a workable concept, but if one of the simulated outages led to disaster there would be Hell to pay.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: For those who like to regress to their youth? :-) |
| Message-ID | <n908r321cag@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #158750 |
On 2016-02-03, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <1223516001.476228974.441461.peter_flass- > yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, peter_flass@yahoo.com says... > >> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> focused on watching an autopilot fly a plane for many hours at a time, >>> every day. People just are not wired to do that. So when the autopilot >>> fails, it takes the human crew a while to get their heads into the >>> current state of the airplane, even if they are the most skilled crew >>> that has ever existed. >> >> Maybe the autopilot should be programmed to throw in a few jinks and jags >> to keep the crew on its toes. > > That just makes it an amusement park ride. On the other hand, > programmed simulated outages at random intervals might be a workable > concept, but if one of the simulated outages led to disaster there would > be Hell to pay. That's why such simulated outages should be left in the simulators, which do them very well - and indeed are used for advanced training in dealing with such situations. The trick is realizing when such a situation is happening while there's still time to do something about it. Again, simulators are good for this. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 28 of 36 — ← Prev page 1 … 26 27 [28] 29 30 … 36 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web