Alternative FET Map which addresses Southern Hemisphere issues

actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach

Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 08:28:49 PM

actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach

Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.

I was avoiding the topic of groundspeed.  I did not want to hear him babble about conspiracy instruments.  Sticking to airspeed is more or less accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion.  RE states the distance at 10,000km.  His image implies that it is in the 20-30,000 mile range (32,000-48,000km)  the order of magnitude of differences between these figures makes airspeed vs groundspeed (less than 50% error) insignificant

I should keep a ratio of how many repsonses are semantics vs actual information

Quote from: Ski on July 14, 2011, 09:02:48 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 08:28:49 PM

actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach

Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.

I was avoiding the topic of groundspeed.  I did not want to hear him babble about conspiracy instruments.  Sticking to airspeed is more or less accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion.  RE states the distance at 10,000km.  His image implies that it is in the 20-30,000 mile range (32,000-48,000km)  the order of magnitude of differences between these figures makes airspeed vs groundspeed (less than 50% error) insignificant

I should keep a ratio of how many repsonses are semantics vs actual information

If it wasn't for semantics, FES would rarely have an argument.

Quote from: Ski on July 14, 2011, 09:02:48 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 08:28:49 PM

actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach

Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.

I was avoiding the topic of groundspeed.  I did not want to hear him babble about conspiracy instruments.  Sticking to airspeed is more or less accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion.  RE states the distance at 10,000km.  His image implies that it is in the 20-30,000 mile range (32,000-48,000km)  the order of magnitude of differences between these figures makes airspeed vs groundspeed (less than 50% error) insignificant

I should keep a ratio of how many repsonses are semantics vs actual information

Why/how would you be avoiding the topic of groundspeed when that is, in fact, what you are disputing?

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 09:07:45 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 14, 2011, 09:02:48 PM

Quote from: Theodolite on July 14, 2011, 08:28:49 PM

actual speed of airliners+speed of jet stream is more or less 0.9 mach

Since mach is a measure of airspeed and not groundspeed, your assertion is positively false.

I was avoiding the topic of groundspeed.  I did not want to hear him babble about conspiracy instruments.  Sticking to airspeed is more or less accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion.  RE states the distance at 10,000km.  His image implies that it is in the 20-30,000 mile range (32,000-48,000km)  the order of magnitude of differences between these figures makes airspeed vs groundspeed (less than 50% error) insignificant

I should keep a ratio of how many repsonses are semantics vs actual information

Why/how would you be avoiding the topic of groundspeed when that is, in fact, what you are disputing?

I am conceding that the airspeed can be whatever value favors his theory, it can be best case scenario at all times in both directions.  My point is that even if you increase or decrease the aircrafts speed by 50%,  the trip will still take an amount of time that is closer to the estimated RE flight time than it is to the proposed FE flight time.

eg:  i am saying the distance is 10,000km.  he has declined to comment, so lets estimate that the distance is 40,000km. 

if the aircraft is travelling 1000km/hr my scenario would take 10 hrs, his would take 40.  even if you increase the speed to 1500 km/hr, his scenario will still take well over 20 hours.

eg:  i am saying the distance is 10,000km.  he has declined to comment, so lets estimate that the distance is 40,000km. 

We know no such thing.

if the aircraft is travelling 1000km/hr my scenario would take 10 hrs, his would take 40.  even if you increase the speed to 1500 km/hr, his scenario will still take well over 20 hours.

And one could travel at well over 1500 km/hr groundspeed and not approach Mach. Again, I cannot imagine that you know the distance to be 40,000 kilometers.

40,000 is my arbitraty guess,  take a look at his map and make your own guess.  I was way on the low end.  Hawaii is in the top left corner, and new zealand is in the bottom right corner.

The RE distance from LA to south aftica is 16.7k km 
The disctance we are discussing apprears to be roughly 2.5 that distance, hence 40,000km


At 20,000 feet (6,096 meters), the speed of sound is 660 miles per hour (1,062 kilometers per hour).  The higher you go, the lower it is.  So like I have said twice now, I am allowing for an extreme increase of 500 km/hr for some fantasy super tailwind.

All of my figures are reasonable enough to make the comparison.  The booked flights match my RE numbers, and are off from his numbers by  multiples

There is an alternative FET map which addresses some concerns about ... travel times.

Which one would that be?

Quote from: Skeleton

I said explain the motions of the sun, not describe them. What you describe is not what is observed by people. You will of course also explain how the sun is able to travel at constant speed on this map, how it goes from one track to another overnight while observers on the ground notice only a barely perceptible difference in its location in the sky from one day to the next, and how an observer in the sea on the equator on near there would not see it pass to their left on one day and to their right on the other on the day it switches tracks. Do your best, I will get the popcorn.

You can't say what observers on the equator experience on the day the sun switches gears. These are third world countries on the equator. Who is to notice if the sun rises slightly to the right and sets slightly to the left?

The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.

Er, not slightly to the right or left, it goes off in a completely different direction overnight! Duh.
BTW I find your comments about equatorial countries to be rude, racist, prejudiced and against the agreed rules of board use.

Quantas has a satisfactory record of late arrivals.  If every flight on a certain route was always late by 100%........

http://travelconsumerdaily.com/story.php?id=604

According to this source about 85% of Quantas flights are on time:

"Of the major domestic airlines, Qantas achieved the highest level of on-time departures for 2010 at 85.6%, followed by Virgin Blue at 83.0%, Jetstar at 80.7% and Tiger Airways at 71.7%."

15% of all flights delayed is quite large when you consider the hundreds of flights Quantas runs every day.

Also, according to the DOT, the average on-time arrival rate is 75% among the 16 largest carriers.

http://www.gadling.com/2011/06/08/airline-industry-best-and-worst-of-april-2011/

"Overall, the airline industry posted an average on-time arrival rate of 75.5 percent. This means that a quarter of the time, they miss the mark. It's almost as easy as being a weather man!"

1 in 4 flights were delayed. Weather conditions, or a slight misunderstanding of the earth's shape?

3 in 4 flights were not delayed, thus disproving your map.

3 in 4 flights were not delayed, thus disproving your map.

My map doesn't necessitate that 4/4 worldwide flights be delayed, only some.

Direct flight from auckland to Honululu

Found this in a one minute search


Departure Status Details 
 
Airport:    (AKL) Auckland International Airport
 
City:    Auckland, NZ 
Scheduled:    11:00 AM - Sat 16-Jul-2011 
Estimated:    11:00 AM - Sat 16-Jul-2011 
Terminal:    I 
Local Time:   4:15 AM - Sat 16-Jul-2011 
  Current Airport Delays Learn More 
 
Delay Index:  Very Low Delays 
Trend:  No change 
Change:  0.0% 
Updated:  16:00 UTC 
Date:  Fri 15-Jul-2011 
   
0.0 - Very Low 
   
 
 
   
 
 
 
Current Weather Conditions Check Forecast 
 
 
Temperature:  50° F (10° C) 
Wind:  S 12 mph 
Visibility:  4 miles 
      Rain   
 Air New ZealandNZ 10
 
Arrival Arrival Status Details 
 
Airport:    (HNL) Honolulu International Airport
 
City:    Honolulu, HI, US 
Scheduled:    9:45 PM - Fri 15-Jul-2011 
Estimated:    9:58 PM - Fri 15-Jul-2011 (runway) 
     Estimated to land on runway 13 min later than scheduled at gate 
Local Time:   6:15 AM - Fri 15-Jul-2011 
 

How will that flight arrive a day before it departs? 

And again, those are flight calculators for future flights, not flight histories. We don't know whether that flight will be delayed due to a faulty premise of a ball world.

I have flown in the US and landed in the local time before I departed in the departure time. That is what time zones are, are you saying there is no time zones between Hawaii and NZ?
on a disc earth and speherical, times zones can and do exist.

... If doing a DST calc is so easy in light of all the problems I have hi-lighted, be my guest. Ram it down my throat with some numbers. But until then, it is not pleading for ignorance to state this is an impossible calculation with so many variables when neither you nor me can provide numbers for it.
How can you calculate an A to B distance when pilots are flying approach plates like these?

Using enroute 'highways' like these?

Joining non direct highways like these?


You do not fly direct. You follow the route you are given which the controllers choose and change for you based on traffic they already have.

Look at it TheJackel! How in God's name am I supposed to calculate your distance? I'll never know which route you took on the day.

Quote

The question is, of course, how can you account for the fact that known airplane flight times follow the can be accurately predicted with an assumption of a spherical earth and cannot be with a flat earth?

You cannot use flight times to conclude that the earth is any shape. Flight times cannot be accurately attributed to any distance or journey. There are dozens of reasons why an aircraft will take the amount of time it does to make a journey.

The first reason is that you never fly direct to your destination.
1) You will always take off and land into wind. This means you may fly in the opposite direction to your intended travel on take off and then having gained enough altitude to be clear of the airport and usually city below, make a turn onto the SID (Mentioned below).
2) Landing is the same. You may have to fly past the airport round the back of it to approach the active runway using a STAR.
3) You must follow a SID when you leave an Airport and use a STAR when you approach one. These take you all over the place to avoid overflying cities for noise abaitment and for terrain clearance on take off and to position aircraft for traffic controllers to feed them in for final approach at the right times for landing. You are also tracking over beacons that are laid out in fields in the middle of nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Instrument_Departure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Terminal_Arrival_Route
4) You may well be placed in a hold. 4 minute race tracks in a stack. You join at the top and aircraft will be stacked every 1000 feet all the way down. When the controller wants another aircraft, he takes one from the bottom. You will not be able to factor in traffic density into your calculation, so cannot say how long you might hold for. You might not hold at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_(aviation)
5) Most routing, especially in remote places is going to be using routes that rely on beacons such as VOR's or NDB's. Following these again takes you out of your way.
6) When crossing oceans you will be forced by law to use a track system for aircraft separation. These change daily due to the weather and again traffic. You can't ever say which route you used on your flight as a passenger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks

Aircraft performance is another major factor
1) You cannot say how much your aircraft weighed on that day. This effects climb performance and cruise. Altitude effects speed.
2) As altitude effects speed you would need to know how high you flew that day. The higher the quicker, due to the widening difference in IAS and TAS.
3) Even the same aircraft types may have different engines. This again effects performance calcs for climb.
4) Temperature plays a large part. Warm air ruins performance. You need to know how hot it was. Temperature also effects Mach number. Commercial aircraft don't fly speeds, they fly on a mach number. As the local speed of sound will vary from day to day you can never be sure how fast you are actually flying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mach_number
5) Atmospheric pressure effects performance. A high pressure is going to hamper your climb out.
http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/flight-planning/aircraft-performance-3.php
6) Wind will effect flight times. Get a good 50 mph head wind and it is going to make some difference to having done the same journey with a 50 mph tailwind. Wind at 30,000 ft is fast.
7) Weight also makes a large difference to cruise performance. Higher loads mean requiring more lift. For this you fly slightly more nose up (Makes a massive distance on a long journey) to get a better angle of attack. This in turn means you are on the end of more drag.
8 ) You rarely descend straight in. You usually perform a let down procedure. You can't predict accurately when you will begin your descent because that will depend on the controller and his traffic volumes.
Check the link below, its interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_plan
9) When descending to low level you are bound to a 250 kt speed limit. This depends on the airspace structure.

Economic factors. (The pilot's influence)
1) Should your aircraft be running late (i.e you took off late) the pilot will go faster. He'll burn extra fuel to avoid a costly late penalty.
2) Should you be ahead of schedule (Maybe you got lucky with an unexpectedly strong tailwind) he'll slow down to save fuel.

I would rigorously argue that with all of those factors and more, one would easily have enough room for manoeuvre to prove the earth was round, flat, shaped like a pygmy goat or is inside-out.

Flight times prove nothing.

[/thread]

I have flown in the US and landed in the local time before I departed in the departure time. That is what time zones are, are you saying there is no time zones between Hawaii and NZ?
on a disc earth and speherical, times zones can and do exist.

Read your post. The times are given in both your time and local times. According to both the flight leaves a day later than it arrives. There is clearly something wrong with the data.

But again, we don't know whether a flight from Orbitz.com or wherever will arrive on time. Those are little more than calculators based on an incorrect model of the earth.

Also, see Thork's post above.

Quote from: Thork on October 19, 2010, 11:02:06 AM

... If doing a DST calc is so easy in light of all the problems I have hi-lighted, be my guest. Ram it down my throat with some numbers. But until then, it is not pleading for ignorance to state this is an impossible calculation with so many variables when neither you nor me can provide numbers for it.
How can you calculate an A to B distance when pilots are flying approach plates like these?

Using enroute 'highways' like these?

Joining non direct highways like these?


You do not fly direct. You follow the route you are given which the controllers choose and change for you based on traffic they already have.

Look at it TheJackel! How in God's name am I supposed to calculate your distance? I'll never know which route you took on the day.

Quote from: Thork on October 18, 2010, 04:18:53 AM

Quote

The question is, of course, how can you account for the fact that known airplane flight times follow the can be accurately predicted with an assumption of a spherical earth and cannot be with a flat earth?

You cannot use flight times to conclude that the earth is any shape. Flight times cannot be accurately attributed to any distance or journey. There are dozens of reasons why an aircraft will take the amount of time it does to make a journey.

The first reason is that you never fly direct to your destination.
1) You will always take off and land into wind. This means you may fly in the opposite direction to your intended travel on take off and then having gained enough altitude to be clear of the airport and usually city below, make a turn onto the SID (Mentioned below).
2) Landing is the same. You may have to fly past the airport round the back of it to approach the active runway using a STAR.
3) You must follow a SID when you leave an Airport and use a STAR when you approach one. These take you all over the place to avoid overflying cities for noise abaitment and for terrain clearance on take off and to position aircraft for traffic controllers to feed them in for final approach at the right times for landing. You are also tracking over beacons that are laid out in fields in the middle of nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Instrument_Departure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Terminal_Arrival_Route
4) You may well be placed in a hold. 4 minute race tracks in a stack. You join at the top and aircraft will be stacked every 1000 feet all the way down. When the controller wants another aircraft, he takes one from the bottom. You will not be able to factor in traffic density into your calculation, so cannot say how long you might hold for. You might not hold at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_(aviation)
5) Most routing, especially in remote places is going to be using routes that rely on beacons such as VOR's or NDB's. Following these again takes you out of your way.
6) When crossing oceans you will be forced by law to use a track system for aircraft separation. These change daily due to the weather and again traffic. You can't ever say which route you used on your flight as a passenger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks

Aircraft performance is another major factor
1) You cannot say how much your aircraft weighed on that day. This effects climb performance and cruise. Altitude effects speed.
2) As altitude effects speed you would need to know how high you flew that day. The higher the quicker, due to the widening difference in IAS and TAS.
3) Even the same aircraft types may have different engines. This again effects performance calcs for climb.
4) Temperature plays a large part. Warm air ruins performance. You need to know how hot it was. Temperature also effects Mach number. Commercial aircraft don't fly speeds, they fly on a mach number. As the local speed of sound will vary from day to day you can never be sure how fast you are actually flying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mach_number
5) Atmospheric pressure effects performance. A high pressure is going to hamper your climb out.
http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/flight-planning/aircraft-performance-3.php
6) Wind will effect flight times. Get a good 50 mph head wind and it is going to make some difference to having done the same journey with a 50 mph tailwind. Wind at 30,000 ft is fast.
7) Weight also makes a large difference to cruise performance. Higher loads mean requiring more lift. For this you fly slightly more nose up (Makes a massive distance on a long journey) to get a better angle of attack. This in turn means you are on the end of more drag.
8 ) You rarely descend straight in. You usually perform a let down procedure. You can't predict accurately when you will begin your descent because that will depend on the controller and his traffic volumes.
Check the link below, its interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_plan
9) When descending to low level you are bound to a 250 kt speed limit. This depends on the airspace structure.

Economic factors. (The pilot's influence)
1) Should your aircraft be running late (i.e you took off late) the pilot will go faster. He'll burn extra fuel to avoid a costly late penalty.
2) Should you be ahead of schedule (Maybe you got lucky with an unexpectedly strong tailwind) he'll slow down to save fuel.

I would rigorously argue that with all of those factors and more, one would easily have enough room for manoeuvre to prove the earth was round, flat, shaped like a pygmy goat or is inside-out.

Flight times prove nothing.

[/thread]

Another attempt to mislead people with irrelevant information.

You are proving the point that it takes more time to reach a destination then it should take if you took the most direct route.

Thus. you quoting long flight times does not mean that the earth must be flat.  Also, even if 15% of the flights between hawaii and sydney are delays, 85% are on time, which means that in normal conditions their math is correct.

As an alleged commercial pilot, you are approaching the realm of being a liar by not commenting on the fact that most delays are due to traffic jams at airports, having weather in your way, or having a strong headwind.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on July 15, 2011, 09:30:11 AM

I have flown in the US and landed in the local time before I departed in the departure time. That is what time zones are, are you saying there is no time zones between Hawaii and NZ?
on a disc earth and speherical, times zones can and do exist.

Read your post. The times are given in both your time and local times. According to both the flight leaves a day later than it arrives. There is clearly something wrong with the data.

But again, we don't know whether a flight from Orbitz.com or wherever will arrive on time. Those are little more than calculators based on an incorrect model of the earth.

Also, see Thork's post above.

Actually, those websites are merely vendors, offering services that are for sale.

There are no calculations involved.  Each flight number is repeated on a schedule.  The times listed are the ones that are achieved regularily.

Also, once again, I will correct you misquoting something with malicious intent.

"Times are given in local time"


You misquoted this to say "Times are given in your local time"

As a business person who flies, it is useful to know what time it is when you land, where you land. 


Back to my original statement.  I have estimated the distance according to your artwork (referred to by you as a map) from the top left corner (hawaii) to the lower right corner(new zealand) to be 40,000km.  Do you have another value you believe it to be, and measurements you have made on this drawing that support the figure?

Now who is ignoring what is presented in favour of predetermined beliefs? For a huge amount of reasons (and by the way I covered headwinds, traffic and weather conditions, if you bothered to read, not only this post but the threads the links I gave you, came from) you cannot use flight times to calculate earth's shape. That is a fact.
You will need to come up with something else to prove earth's shape.

Slightly off topic, but would you be interested in an alcoholic tomato drink?

Now who is ignoring what is presented in favour of predetermined beliefs? For a huge amount of reasons (and by the way I covered headwinds, traffic and weather conditions, if you bothered to read, not only this post but the threads the links I gave you, came from) you cannot use flight times to calculate earth's shape. That is a fact.
You will need to come up with something else to prove earth's shape.

Slightly off topic, but would you be interested in an alcoholic tomato drink?

You have provided some information in this post, but your conclusion is disputed.  Your reasoning ability might prevent you from calculating things with this many variables, and that is ok, it isnt really relevant to your job as a pilot.  You just make sure your instruments give the correct readings at the correct times, and follow your checklists, you dont truly need to understand what you are looking at or where you are going  (aside from watching for solid objects in the air)

Too many times on this forum is the conclusion "You cannot use X to determine the shape of the earth"
My rewording:  " we, as layman, do not understand how to use X to determine the shape of the earth"


All of your babble aside, everything you reference involves adding to the total flight time.  I am focusing on the minimum possible flight time.

If a plane flies from hawaii to sydney, and it takes 12 hours to reach there, then we can determine a maximum possible distance.  If any of your factors are applied, they would decrease the maximum possible distance.

As your FE theories all involve the distance between vastly (400%) further then the real distances, then in a best case scenario it would still take much much longer to arrive.  And if any of the stuff you babble about occurs, then it will take even longer.


My calculations stand.  At a maximum speed of 1500 km/hr in 12 hours you could fly 18,000km at maximum, if none of the stuff you mention occurs.  Indirect flightpatchs add distance, weather adds distance, ..............etc ad naseum


you dont like 1500 km,hr?  Maybe there are magical 500 mph winds down there?   Call it 2000 km/hr    24,000 km max then.  Still doesnt come near to matching your artwork

Actually you plug all the details into the FMS.

It works it all out. The FMS must know the shape of the earth, but their source code is a closely guarded secret. Now you know why. That kind of info would be dynamite in the public domain. 

I assume you are not interested in Tomartini^TM?

Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.

Actually you plug all the details into the FMS.

It works it all out. The FMS must know the shape of the earth, but their source code is a closely guarded secret. Now you know why. That kind of info would be dynamite in the public domain. 

I assume you are not interested in Tomartini^TM?

Try a ceaser

Quote from: Thork on July 15, 2011, 10:01:59 AM

Now who is ignoring what is presented in favour of predetermined beliefs? For a huge amount of reasons (and by the way I covered headwinds, traffic and weather conditions, if you bothered to read, not only this post but the threads the links I gave you, came from) you cannot use flight times to calculate earth's shape. That is a fact.
You will need to come up with something else to prove earth's shape.

Slightly off topic, but would you be interested in an alcoholic tomato drink?

You have provided some information in this post, but your conclusion is disputed.  Your reasoning ability might prevent you from calculating things with this many variables, and that is ok, it isnt really relevant to your job as a pilot.  You just make sure your instruments give the correct readings at the correct times, and follow your checklists, you dont truly need to understand what you are looking at or where you are going  (aside from watching for solid objects in the air)

Too many times on this forum is the conclusion "You cannot use X to determine the shape of the earth"
My rewording:  " we, as layman, do not understand how to use X to determine the shape of the earth"


All of your babble aside, everything you reference involves adding to the total flight time.  I am focusing on the minimum possible flight time.

If a plane flies from hawaii to sydney, and it takes 12 hours to reach there, then we can determine a maximum possible distance.  If any of your factors are applied, they would decrease the maximum possible distance.

As your FE theories all involve the distance between vastly (400%) further then the real distances, then in a best case scenario it would still take much much longer to arrive.  And if any of the stuff you babble about occurs, then it will take even longer.


My calculations stand.  At a maximum speed of 1500 km/hr in 12 hours you could fly 18,000km at maximum, if none of the stuff you mention occurs.  Indirect flightpatchs add distance, weather adds distance, ..............etc ad naseum


you dont like 1500 km,hr?  Maybe there are magical 500 mph winds down there?   Call it 2000 km/hr    24,000 km max then.  Still doesnt come near to matching your artwork

Any FE'rs have any comments?

Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.

Are you ok? Maybe you should relax a bit? Have some time away from the upper fora? Meet the rest of the Flat Earth Society?

I have a degree in aerospace engineering and a commercial pilots license. What do you think I spent all those years learning?

Any FE'rs have any comments?

I would rigorously argue that with all of those factors and more, one would easily have enough room for manoeuvre to prove the earth was round, flat, shaped like a pygmy goat or is inside-out.

Flight times prove nothing.

Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.

Have you considered the possibility that he is simply willfully misrepresenting what he knows?

Quote from: Skeleton on July 15, 2011, 10:20:42 AM

Lol @ Thorks comments about flight and planes, as if he understands it properly.

Have you considered the possibility that he is simply willfully misrepresenting what he knows?

That's a bloody outrageous accusation! I demand a retraction.

Perhaps you shouldn't have publicly admitted to trolling on several occasions.