Can you dispute any of the 1s you've been given?

I looked up "parody." It is a literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. This ain't it. It's just self-indulgently boring word-substitution.

@detractors, sure... have 2423 parodies on my sheet, most of which average over 4.o overall and on this 9-line OS I followed the structure and pacing and added a few lines. Maybe it's not funny to either of you, but most of the parodies on this site do not follow typical dictionary-defined parody rules. Most do not mock the singer, the song, nor the MV for the song. Most are following current events and are merely sarcastic, witty, informative, political, lewd, or gross (toilet humor and/or zombie stuff). I don't have to answer to either of you two btw. Who are either of you since you posted under pseudonyms like the rest of the critics? By not having integrity to post your own names, you nullify your own comments. I have broken most records here for productivity and am still the only Top Parodist that is also Top Contributor (Nos 3 and 6 respectively). Have 4036 submissions under contributor. Can you match that or topic diversity? Or even knowledge base? No. More disgruntled Vets that get poor scores themselves over mundane topic parodies. Not my problem as I write what I want and share a lot of information that otherwise would never be found here. I take pride in my works of all kinds over the Internet and specialize in topics that neither of you can even understand. Please go 5 one of your buddies as that is the most honest rating system around here. And ask yourself if all the humor parodists produce lyrical gold with their works here. The answer is No- just look at their author sheet typical ratings. Far from perfect 5s and gut-busting humor. No one here is another Weird Al or Bart Baker, so get down off your high horse(s).

Just found a photo online of a B-52 that lost its tail to turbulence while on a test flight over Colorado back in 1964. Boeing in Wichita and air traffic control in Kansas City guided it to a safe landing in Arkansas. Proves you don't need a vertical tail. I've been to Whiteman AFB in Missouri and I reckon I've seen most of the B-2's at one time or another. No wonder they call 'em "Spooky".

The B-17s of WW2 also took tremendous hits from German flak and fighter cannon and limped back to base minus tails. Trouble with flying wings of all types is stability and excessive vibration through the airframe. That's why the YB-35 and 49 craft postwar were scrapped as those problems mixed with other mechanical and electrical were never solved and performance was sub-par. The B-2 is built more on German Horten architecture from the stored and digitally mapped V-3 than any historical Northrop design. Stealth first appeared as standard with the Ho-IX in 1945 which was a jet fighter flying wing test aircraft. In production, Gotha would have built it as Go-229. Latter F-117 stealth was derived by the USAF from declassified Soviet materials in the "70s from Prof. Ufimtsev's work on radar diffraction using geometric shapes. Even so, W. Germany had a competitor that was stealth and faceted interceptor MBB Lampyridae that infuriated the USAF when it's existence became known. It was cancelled but stealth was passed on through DASA and then EADS. Dornier also proposed stealth projects as well as a SST that the W. German Govt couldn't afford to build. Soviets wanted to build copies of the Ho-18 bomber postwar but Stalin wouldn't allow reliance on captured German tech in aviation to that degree!