Re: Number of engines, was: earliest moon landing
From: Neil Gerace (geracen_at_iinet.net.au)
Date: 01/05/05
- Next message: Derek Lyons: "Re: Sickening Discussion"
- Previous message: Derek Lyons: "Re: Sickening Discussion"
- In reply to: OM: "Re: Number of engines, was: earliest moon landing"
- Next in thread: Ami Silberman: "Re: Number of engines, was: earliest moon landing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:47:01 +0800
"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research_facility.org> wrote
in message news:nnult0lvp9rark2mhngvj8afkv1v52vc49@4ax.com...
> ...To me, that equals a quick flight path to boredom, with stopovers
> at tedium, drudgery, and a plane change at monotony. After all, what
> good are flight sims if you can't escape into the sheer absurdity of
> dogfights between 747s?
"Tyrannosaurs in F-14s!"
-- Calvin
- Next message: Derek Lyons: "Re: Sickening Discussion"
- Previous message: Derek Lyons: "Re: Sickening Discussion"
- In reply to: OM: "Re: Number of engines, was: earliest moon landing"
- Next in thread: Ami Silberman: "Re: Number of engines, was: earliest moon landing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]