Psypoke
http://www.psypokes.com/forums/

How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?
http://www.psypokes.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23929
Page 2 of 2

Author:  lordtomato [ Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?

I smiled.

I like brontosaurus. :D

Author:  Poe [ Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?

I kept a straight face. But it was EXTREMELY hard.


Velociraptor for the win!

Author:  Zombie [ Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?

I didn't think it was very funny, so I showed my little brother, he didn't get it....

BONE HEAD DINOSAUR ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!

Image

Author:  Peanut-Lover [ Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?

sN0wBaLL wrote:
Peanut-Lover wrote:
I actually had a challenge with my friends, back in May on our way to the competition. Changes needed to be made, and I volunteered to give up my seat on the plane. We had a race - who could get through everything faster? In fact, I left from Penn Station to Washington, DC., and then hailed a cab to head over to their airport they were coming in to (Reagan, I think), and I beat them - by a half-hour.
When I was getting on the train, they were still going through security scans, taking off their shoes. They ahd to stand for a good half-hour, waiting to board, and I was half-way through NJ. The plane and the train were scheduled to leave at the same time, by the way. Things moved much faster. And I took the local (not the acela express).


Well it might have been faster to go by non-air forms of travel in this case, due to all the procedures in place at the airport. But try getting to, say, Australia, by non-air travel. You merely explained why it is convenient to stick to other forms of transport for travel over shorter geographical distances.




But we see with new technology that people are able to get by on trains just as nicely. With less fossil fuels (theoretically, these trains can run on solar, as opposed to the planes). There are trains that will cover vast distances silently and quickly with the aid of super conductors. And it uses half the energy.

Even if trans-continental travel couldn't be replaced, it is a waste of resources to have a plane fly from NYC -> North Carolina, when the train could do it better, do it faster.

Author:  Zombie [ Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?

but...train tracks are just so messy, they're loud, they hug the ground, people don't want to live around them....seriously, they take up too much space

Author:  Peanut-Lover [ Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?

You don't seem to understand - the super-conducting magnets that could be used are in fact silent.



And, while we're at it, I invite you people to my house for 7:30 tomorrow mornin, like every morning - jets flying above my house rattle my chandeliers beyond the point of tolerance. My family lost pieces of fine crystal in our cases when we first moved. Talk about noisy and disruptive.

Author:  Sparrow [ Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?

Image

Trains make Chief Joseph sad. :(

Author:  Peanut-Lover [ Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How many sacks of meat does it take to bring down a plane?

Chief Joseph upset because we kept him prisoner of the US, as opposed to letting him run wild in the freedom which was Canada.

We should have let the Nez Perce leave - they would have been happy, we would have had more land. Spent less money on reparations to them.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/