He was using the fact that he had access to the document and others did not to claim it said things that it did not. It was never about “winning” an argument.
Also, the forum is no place this this type of discussion. You slander me, state such things about my character and act as if you are above me when you are stooping to the same level you claim me to be. I already told Ziggy it is beneath him. It should be beneath you as well. All this is doing is derailing the thread and harming any productive discussion.
It is quite clear what he was insinuating from much earlier in the discussion… and that was not their original post. I asked them for sources to this and many many many many many other things to which they ignored me and continues to assert more baseless claims.
If you tell on the game, why are community members not allowed to ever mention it? I understand why you would want to suppress it.
But as community members who speak actively on the games future have a right to know and remind ourselves to avoid such unproductive hostile behaviors such as going outside of community management.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I am sorry.
You are talking about going around community management and proceeding to derail the thread despite MULTIPLE warnings. You’re literally doing what you claim I did. You’re making this much worse for yourself in the process. Not only was he sharing restricted information by abusing access to a system, but he was lying about what those sources said at the same time because he knew no one else could see.
Precisely.
What you are doing is unproductive and hostile behavior.
I mean you literally just lied about someone else’s posts. Calling you out on this behavior and then pointing out your history is fair game at that point. I don’t bring such things up unti it becomes relevant.
And your typical “offtopic!” screech the minute things turn against you is pointless. When you act in a dishonest manner, your previous dishonesty becomes topical.
Are you dense? I am not talking about Ziggy. Pay attention to who is posting what. This is also a pattern for you and it starts to seem like you’re deliberately misattributing argukents.
This is quite difficult at the moment with all the derailing and unproductive discourse.
Ziggy has been doing this for 100+ posts, I didn’t directly quote them and summed up what they were trying to say and you claim it’s lying and immediately start slandering me further. Fantastic assessment.
It’s clear that you three are not going to stop this hostile behavior or discourse any time soon. Cheers.
Yeah you know I don’t buy that. It’s not all that hard to go back and check what people said. You’ve done it, for that matter, quoting old posts and posts from other threads, so I don’t believe you when you claim that you just made a mistake.
You can’t say “According to google”, you have to give at least a website or a link or something.
Maybe the 6g limit is true but just saying according to google bring kinda nothing. It’s the same as asking ChatGPT for something.
It’s like “according to books the value is …” the book could be a fligh manual or a children story.
That seems highly unlikely to me as those are tighter restrictions than the even the AIM-9B’s restrictions:
In that context LBA means “Limit of Basic Aircraft”. So essentially even the AIM-9B could be fired at any speed or g load within the aircraft’s flight envelope (which for the F-8 was up to 800 kts / 6.4 g).
According to Boyd Flying manual AIM-9B was strong depending from g forces at launches. Of course probably it’s can go off the rail and don’t damage the plane.
Actually “limit of basic Aircraft” it’s not the same “maximum performance limit”
Those mounts are pretty much optimal for launch in aerodynamic terms, given how far forward they are with separation to the side of the airframe. Wing or body pylons will be worse because they are inside the flow field of the wing.
Please stop passive aggressive / hostile interaction on the thread, thank you. My understanding seems to coincide with his, perhaps you are the one misreading the document?
