Why Do We Lie About The Dead?

Lofty_Love wrote:New thread title:


Why does Nat Lie About Herself?

Because its either a man pretending to be a woman living out some weird fantasy on internet forums. shes a fantastic WUM though, il give her that.

Or shes a lonely sad woman stuck in a dead end job or unemployed, who uses her 'internet persona' of a Jet-setting, international businesswoman to make herself feel better. Basically, shes a fantasist.

She fucks up way to much and contradicts herself on a weekly basis for this 'internet personality' to be remotely real.

she gets off on making people react.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:So to you - Everybody who gets murdered or suffers a premature death is a total wanker?

I just find it a bit silly to be saying what a great pilot he was when he's just crashed into a bloody big crane.

They are saying it in a different way than you are taking it. They are saying he WAS experienced, RESPONSIBLE, COMPETENT, CAPABLE, - good at it, and yet sadly was unable to avoid the tragedy due to the circumstances. As in, he wasn't just some fool who had passed his helicopter driving test that morning and was out for a spin seeing how close he could get to a crane for shits and giggles.

Turns out the pilot was warned not to fly but chose to ignore the advice TWICE.

Seems he was a bit of a tit afterall, what a surprise.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Turns out the pilot was warned not to fly but chose to ignore the advice TWICE.

Seems he was a bit of a tit afterall, what a surprise.

Source please?

A report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, just been on tv.

PM me your apologies.

You can fuck off with the apology.

It appears the passenger had concerns over the weather and advised the pilot that maybe they should delay taking off.

the pilot responded saying it would be fine.

the pilot had years experience in the RAF, as an air ambulance pilot and a passenger charter pilot.

i would have trusted the pilots Judgement over the passenger.

If you have a problem with your car, you would trust a mechanics advice over the advice of your dentist wouldn't you?

Reebok_Rebel wrote:You can fuck off with the apology.

It appears the passenger had concerns over the weather and advised the pilot that maybe they should delay taking off.

the pilot responded saying it would be fine.

the pilot had years experience in the RAF, as an air ambulance pilot and a passenger charter pilot.

i would have trusted the pilots Judgement over the passenger.

If you have a problem with your car, you would trust a mechanics advice over the advice of your dentist wouldn't you?

The passenger was an airline pilot.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:You can fuck off with the apology.

It appears the passenger had concerns over the weather and advised the pilot that maybe they should delay taking off.

the pilot responded saying it would be fine.

the pilot had years experience in the RAF, as an air ambulance pilot and a passenger charter pilot.

i would have trusted the pilots Judgement over the passenger.

If you have a problem with your car, you would trust a mechanics advice over the advice of your dentist wouldn't you?

The passenger was an airline pilot.

prove it.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

prove it.

It was on the news, he works for Quantas.

Thanks for your PM apology.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

prove it.

It was on the news, he works for Quantas.

Thanks for your PM apology.

I don't believe you, provide me with hard proof or I will assume you are lying.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

I don't believe you, provide me with hard proof or I will assume you are lying.

Who cares.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

I don't believe you, provide me with hard proof or I will assume you are lying.

Who cares.

you.

your lying - hence why you cant provide proof.

provide proof or i will carry on assuming that your a lying, bullshitting WUM.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

you.

your lying - hence why you cant provide proof.

provide proof or i will carry on assuming that your a lying, bullshitting WUM.

Are you having a breakdown?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

you.

your lying - hence why you cant provide proof.

provide proof or i will carry on assuming that your a lying, bullshitting WUM.

Are you having a breakdown?

No, Im rather happy that ive just proved you to be wrong.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

No, Im rather happy that ive just proved you to be wrong.

Well I just watched the story again on Sky News, I'm sure it'll filter through to the BBC in time.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Oh right, so because I don't agree with you I must be making it up?

Agree?

you stated the passenger was a pilot - this is not something for me to 'agree' with, its a statement of (so called) fact from yourself.

If you would have said "I think the passenger was a Pilot", this would have left it open for me to agree or disagree, but you didn't, you stated that the "passenger was an airline pilot for Qantas"

I asked you to provide proof, you cant - Thus your a bullshitter and have now been proven as one.

again...

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

No, Im rather happy that ive just proved you to be wrong.

Well I just watched the story again on Sky News, I'm sure it'll filter through to the BBC in time.

Ive got SN on at work...