Question:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1         [ Unusual from France; expected from TSA. -Ed. ]    Newark Airport Screeners Lose Fake Bomb    Dec 15, 1:33 PM (ET)    By WAYNE PARRY    NEWARK,  N.J. (AP) – Baggage screeners at Newark Liberty International    Airport  spotted – and then lost – a fake bomb planted in luggage by a    supervisor during a training exercise.    Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a fake    bomb  complete  with  wires,  a detonator and a clock, made it onto an    Amsterdam-bound flight. It was recovered by airport security officials    in Amsterdam when the flight landed several hours later.    "This  really underscores the importance of the TSA’s ongoing training    exercises,"  said  Ann  Davis,  a  spokeswoman  for the Transportation    Security   Administration,   the   agency  responsible  for  screening    passengers and baggage for weapons and explosives. "At no time did the    bag pose a threat and at no time was anyone in danger."    Earlier  this  month,  French  authorities  lost a bag containing real    explosives  that were being used to train bomb-sniffing dogs. That led    French authorities to prohibit using live explosives in future tests.    The  incident  at  Newark  Liberty  International  was only the latest    embarrassment  for screeners at one of the airports from which some of    the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers took off.    In  October,  The Star-Ledger of Newark reported that screeners missed    one  in  four  fake  explosives  and  weapons  in  secret weekly tests    conducted throughout the summer by TSA agents.    In  Tuesday  night’s  test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the bomb,    which  was designed to resemble the plastic explosive Semtex, inside a    bag that was put through screening machines, Davis said.    A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers somehow lost    track  of  the  bag, which was then loaded onto a Continental Airlines    flight.    Despite  the  incident,  no  flights  were  delayed  and  the terminal    remained open.    Davis  said the TSA is still investigating how screeners lost track of    the bag.    "It  was  an  error  that  the  bag  was not intercepted before it was    loaded,"  she  said,  adding it was too soon to say if anyone would be    disciplined for the failure.                                                         BL. – — Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead!  | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto   PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569  F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBwJo/yBkZmuMZ8L8RAp6rAJ99wv8uoQ1CPYFMK+wtXZhli3/NAgCdGbCq DaW5hTGmOUWP+c90Qu8NtOQ= =+F/j —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

> Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a > fake bomb  complete  with  wires,  a detonator and a clock, made > it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.

The fact that something resembling a bomb made it into a plane’s cargo hold in this case is not particularly newsworthy or noteworthy because it was essentially escorted intentionally through the screening process in a controlled manner. What is interesting is the fact that it was put on ANY plane after it made it through screening. Was a luggage tag printed for it – is that how it ended up on that particular flight?  If so, why put a tag on it?  That would be just asking for trouble.  Better to NOT put any such tag on a test piece of luggage for just this reason. If it had no tag – then how did it end up on that flight? > In  Tuesday  night’s  test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the > bomb, which  was designed to resemble the plastic explosive > Semtex, inside a bag that was put through screening machines, > Davis said. > A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers > somehow lost track  of  the  bag, which was then loaded > onto a Continental Airlines flight.

Are they saying that they put the fake bomb in a real passenger’s bag?  And they DIDN’T take note of the info on the bag-tag, like the pax name or flight number?  Could they be that stupid? Why do something that bone-headed AND complicated? Can’t they go to the airport’s lost and found, grab any old unclaimed bag, fill it with crap – and the fake bomb – and then use that as their standard test item? Print out a fake bag tag to a non-existant airport, change the bag from time-to-time?  (or not.  It’s not like there’s a high retention of TSA screeners who would ever stick around long enough to become familiar to what the standard test bag looks like). I’m surprised this incident didn’t trigger a hysteria-induced airport closure and grounding of all flights within a 100 mile radius.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a > fake bomb  complete  with  wires,  a detonator and a clock, made > it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight. > The fact that something resembling a bomb made it into a plane’s cargo > hold in this case is not particularly newsworthy or noteworthy because > it was essentially escorted intentionally through the screening > process in a controlled manner. > What is interesting is the fact that it was put on ANY plane after it > made it through screening. > Was a luggage tag printed for it – is that how it ended up on that > particular flight?  If so, why put a tag on it?  That would be just > asking for trouble.  Better to NOT put any such tag on a test piece of > luggage for just this reason. > If it had no tag – then how did it end up on that flight? > In  Tuesday  night’s  test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the > bomb, which  was designed to resemble the plastic explosive > Semtex, inside a bag that was put through screening machines, > Davis said. > A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers > somehow lost track  of  the  bag, which was then loaded > onto a Continental Airlines flight. > Are they saying that they put the fake bomb in a real passenger’s > bag?  And they DIDN’T take note of the info on the bag-tag, like the > pax name or flight number?  Could they be that stupid? > Why do something that bone-headed AND complicated? > Can’t they go to the airport’s lost and found, grab any old unclaimed > bag, fill it with crap – and the fake bomb – and then use that as > their standard test item? > Print out a fake bag tag to a non-existant airport, change the bag > from time-to-time?  (or not.  It’s not like there’s a high retention > of TSA screeners who would ever stick around long enough to become > familiar to what the standard test bag looks like). > I’m surprised this incident didn’t trigger a hysteria-induced airport > closure and grounding of all flights within a 100 mile radius.

New TSA Sign; ATTENTION TERRORISTS;  Your weapons may be delayed.  If lost, Please see the Baggage Claim Attendant.

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 > Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a > fake bomb  complete  with  wires,  a detonator and a clock, made > it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight. > The fact that something resembling a bomb made it into a plane’s cargo > hold in this case is not particularly newsworthy or noteworthy because > it was essentially escorted intentionally through the screening > process in a controlled manner.

        What we don’t know is if this happened at the security check-in, where they check carry-on baggage, or if this happened after luggage was checked in. What make this newsworthy, is that TSA misplaced it ALTOGETHER. regardless of the fact that it was escorted through the screening process, it was missed. They caught it, but then lost the location of the bag. The people who conducted the test knew it was fake. But regardless, screeners should have caught it, and dealt with it. It was missed. > What is interesting is the fact that it was put on ANY plane after it > made it through screening. > Was a luggage tag printed for it – is that how it ended up on that > particular flight?  If so, why put a tag on it?  That would be just > asking for trouble.  Better to NOT put any such tag on a test piece of > luggage for just this reason. > If it had no tag – then how did it end up on that flight?

        Very good questions. But if the screeners didn’t know of such a test happening (which they shouldn’t), it could easily make it on a flight. But that would raise the question of why it would make it on a flight with no tags at all. Test or no test, it should have halted the screening process until authorities could come down (including those conducting the test), gone through the entire process of diffusing the bomb, and have given an all clear. This really calls into question the training process of the TSA. > In  Tuesday  night’s  test, a TSA supervisor secretly placed the > bomb, which  was designed to resemble the plastic explosive > Semtex, inside a bag that was put through screening machines, > Davis said. > A baggage screening machine sounded an alarm, but workers > somehow lost track  of  the  bag, which was then loaded > onto a Continental Airlines flight. > Are they saying that they put the fake bomb in a real passenger’s > bag?  And they DIDN’T take note of the info on the bag-tag, like the > pax name or flight number?  Could they be that stupid?

        You really don’t want me to answer that, do you? > Why do something that bone-headed AND complicated?

        Simple. It’s the TSA. > Can’t they go to the airport’s lost and found, grab any old unclaimed > bag, fill it with crap – and the fake bomb – and then use that as > their standard test item? > Print out a fake bag tag to a non-existant airport, change the bag > from time-to-time?  (or not.  It’s not like there’s a high retention > of TSA screeners who would ever stick around long enough to become > familiar to what the standard test bag looks like). > I’m surprised this incident didn’t trigger a hysteria-induced airport > closure and grounding of all flights within a 100 mile radius.

        You’re right. It should have, let alone any flights at or near the destination airports the flight containing the fake bomb would have been on. Since they misplaced that baggage, it could have been on any flight leaving EWR. That would mean tracking down every flight that left after they realised it was missing. And not knowing the ‘time’ left on the bomb before it ‘blew’ any destination of the flights leaving EWR would have been vulnerable.                                                         BL. – — Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead!  | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto   PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569  F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBwfBMyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhdXAJ9I/SC2ovtRlzqZqmzxUQGX7vX0kwCgjQLW 5gEAlNbwpeUr38H+zjMc3VA= =SPyA —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Question:

> I’ve seen data suggesting that you should be able to get 2.2 kWh / Liters > running on vegetable oil, Bio-Diesel is a little lower but Dino-Diesel would > be about the same. This was for a slow running Lister 6Hp 1 cyl. with a 3kW > ST alternator attached.

I get about half of this right now (~1 kWh on a quart) running an induction generator on WVO.  I know my system is very inefficient, so I can believe the 2.2 kWh / liter numbers. Rory

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > It is time for me to think about a proper and practicable fuel system > for my diesel genset. > Option 1: use a 25 gallon, 6" by 13" by 60" polyethylene fuel > tank. That would hopefully last about 2 days of 24 hour operation. > It would sit in the neighboring shed, far from sight. > Pros: one tank to take care of, cool, large capacity in a compact > format. > Cons: illegal in my area, hard to move about due to weight, too much > fuel really. > Option 2: use 5 gallon fuel containers. > Pros: legal, easy to move about. > Cons: not as much storing capacity, would need to stop genset to > switch fuel sources > I am leaning towards using option 2. My question is, is there any > ready made fuel line/return line adaptors for regular gas containers? > Such that if the container falls accidentally, diesel fuel would not > spill. > i

Your real problem with Plastic tanks, and the Fire Marshal, is that plastic tanks will MELT in a fire and then add the contents to the fire, which the Fire Marshal, REALLY will frown on.  A metal tank will just boil off the contents slowly and not add to the majority of a fire. Also I thk you are way UNDER estimating how long your run will be with 5 gallons of fuel on your DJE, at load.  I suspect that your 25 gallons will last at least quadruple what you thinking. I get 10 Gal/day on my 20Kw Northern Lights with runs of 18 hours. This is twice the engine that your running.  My DJA took 50 hours of operation to burn 3 gal at 3Kw load. Bruce in alaska —

Response:

> Also I thk you are way UNDER estimating how long your run will be > with 5 gallons of fuel on your DJE, at load.  I suspect that your 25 > gallons will last at least quadruple what you thinking. > I get 10 Gal/day on my 20Kw Northern Lights with runs of 18 hours. > This is twice the engine that your running.  My DJA took 50 hours > of operation to burn 3 gal at 3Kw load. > Wow, that is impressive. Based on the information you provided — 50 > hours on the twice smaller DJA — it would logically take the DJE 25 > hours to burn one 5 gallon container’s worth of fuel. Very nice. One 5 > gal container per day, roughly, at half load. Is my calculation > sensible? If so, I am even happier than I was before.

I’ve seen data suggesting that you should be able to get 2.2 kWh / Liters running on vegetable oil, Bio-Diesel is a little lower but Dino-Diesel would be about the same. This was for a slow running Lister 6Hp 1 cyl. with a 3kW ST alternator attached. How much electricity do you use a day, have you logged your consumption over time, that will give you a good idea of how much you would use… /Morten — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

   >Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower    >Whatever you decide, there is one item to remember. You’ll need fuel    >stabilizer in the diesel. I’ve heard some fungus and algae love the    >stuff. If left for some time, the fuel turns nasty.    >You’ll have to do a search for the particulars..    >mike Try the archives.  This topic got a heavy workout about 6 months ago. Tom Willmon near Mountainair, (mid) New Mexico, USA Net-Tamer V 1.12.0 – Registered

Response:

> “B) Prohibited Storage Of Flammable Liquids: The storage of flammable > liquids in outside aboveground tanks is prohibited within the > corporate limits of the Village except by special permit issued by the

Diesel may not qualify as "flammable", per that type of language. If you can find a diesel-fuel rated, labeled container (like a gasoline container, but yellow and marked for diesel) you will note that the language on there describes the contents as combustible. This means that the flash point is above 100F (flammable, such as gasoline, is below 100F) Obviously a good idea to double check that interpretation with your local fire officials – they can be quite helpful if you ask them. > Based on common sense, I want to go for simplicity, that is, simply > using 5 gallon fuel containers. > What I now need to know is how to make a good fuel adaptor for a fuel > container, so that I can draw fuel and return it, but bugs and dirt > would not get in and it would not spill too much if I knock it over > (as happened yesterday).

You’re evidently into "military surplus", so a fitment based on a standard jerry can spout connector would seem to make sense, along with jerry cans as your 5 gallon containers. If these are still fairly similar to the old jerry cans, they have a large flat surface with a pretty small spout/hose coming out; there might also be spoutless "blank" covers, it’s been 20 years or so since I used one. You want a cover with 3 holes in it – one hose to pick up fuel from the bottom of the can, one hose for fuel return from the pump, and one hose to a vent (filtered/screened in some way, and mounted well above the tank). I forget if the cans have a separate vent hole, if so, your vent hose/filter  can connect to that. If this is correctly made, there should be no leakage at all if it’s knocked over (but you should also make a holder to keep the can from being knocked over). — Cats, Coffee, Chocolate…vices to live by

Response:

> It is time for me to think about a proper and practicable fuel system > for my diesel genset.

Whatever you decide, there is one item to remember. You’ll need fuel stabilizer in the diesel. I’ve heard some fungus and algae love the stuff. If left for some time, the fuel turns nasty. You’ll have to do a search for the particulars.. mike

Response:

   >Newsgroups: alt.energy.homepower [snip]    >I just called our fire department.    >The fire official said no way I could store diesel in a polyethylene    >tank.    >He said to use approved metal fuel containers that have "spring    >loaded lids". I never heard of those but he sounded like they are    >available. I know these as "safety cans".  Cylindrical, pivoted handle on top, spout at shoulder with a flap-like cover spring-loaded against it.  A good one will have a screen flame arrester inside the spout.  One of mine came from NAPA auto parts.  Suckers cost, used to be about $25. They’re a real pain to pour from, requiring pressure on the handle to lift the flap off the spout.  Like many safety devices, their use adds unnecessary hazard to the operation.  They’re a good idea for storing gasoline and other highly volatiles, but I don’t see the sense for diesel. And polyethylene is a poor choice for a fuel tank, melt and release its contents into a fire. Tom Willmon near Mountainair, (mid) New Mexico, USA Net-Tamer V 1.12.0 – Registered

Response:

I’ll get a pic this weekend. Steve Spence Dir., Green Trust http://www.green-trust.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I would suggest the white plastic 15 gallon containers. 15 gallons is >movable by one person, full, with some effort. It has 2 bungs on top, >and can have fuel line connectors installed into the sides with a bit of >finagling. > Do you have a picture of one somewhere?I have never seen such > containers. > i >Steve Spence >Dir., Green Trust >http://www.green-trust.org >>It is time for me to think about a proper and practicable fuel system >>for my diesel genset. >>Option 1: use a 25 gallon, 6" by 13" by 60" polyethylene fuel >>tank. That would hopefully last about 2 days of 24 hour operation. >>It would sit in the neighboring shed, far from sight. >>Pros: one tank to take care of, cool, large capacity in a compact >>format. >>Cons: illegal in my area, hard to move about due to weight, too much >>fuel really. >>Option 2: use 5 gallon fuel containers. >>Pros: legal, easy to move about. >>Cons: not as much storing capacity, would need to stop genset to >>switch fuel sources >>I am leaning towards using option 2. My question is, is there any >>ready made fuel line/return line adaptors for regular gas containers? >>Such that if the container falls accidentally, diesel fuel would not >>spill. >>i

Response:

>     What some setups use is a multiple fuel tank system. > There is the primary ( Don’t know the proper term for it. ) tank > which is where the engine takes suction and where the fuel return > lines spew back into.  This is usually quite small, only a few gallons, > and is permanently attached.

The "day tank". I gather that the term arises from shipboard systems where it is or was common for it to be of a size to run the generator for 24 hours. >     The next tank or tanks, have a fuel pump that pumps into the > primary tank, with a float switch to keep the primary tank at a given > level.  This way one can swap tanks easily, without having to shut > down.  It does introduce an additional point of failure.

An important additional aspect of this type of system is additional filtering between the bulk storage and the day tank. If the system is being run by an operator and the day tank is really good for a day, then float switches, etc are not really needed, and may not be wanted, if there is an opportunity for the operator to inspect the incoming fuel as it is transferred in, and stop to change filters or draw from a different tank if a particular batch of fuel appears problematic, without getting problematic fuel into the day tank (and thus the generator itself). How this sort of thing scales down to a home system is up to the operator of the home system. If Ignoramus’s assement of his local laws is that he can not have a generator fuel tank larger than 5 gallons, then one option is a 5 gallon "day tank" connected to the generator, with provison to transfer fuel into it from other 5 gallon tanks (using a transfer pump, with or without additional fuel filtering). Correctly set up, this would permit continous operation with safety. I suspect that the local laws might actually allow a larger tank, if it is viewed as non-portable (and is diesel, not gasoline). Certainly anywhere that oil heat is common (such as NE USA) 275 gallon oil tanks are a common, accepted, legal means of storing fuel oil either inside of or next to dwellings; and many pre-packaged portable generators have fuel tanks of 6-12 gallons or even larger. — Cats, Coffee, Chocolate…vices to live by

Response:

We have two 15 gallon fuel tanks, one for diesel, one for veggie oil. a coolant heat exchanger keeps the veggie oil tank warm. we have a electric fuel selector valve to select tanks. Currently we just drop the fuel lines into the open bungs, and it’s still easy to refill from 5 gallon containers. Steve Spence Dir., Green Trust http://www.green-trust.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->It is time for me to think about a proper and practicable fuel system >for my diesel genset. >Option 1: use a 25 gallon, 6" by 13" by 60" polyethylene fuel >tank. That would hopefully last about 2 days of 24 hour operation. >It would sit in the neighboring shed, far from sight. >Pros: one tank to take care of, cool, large capacity in a compact >format. >Cons: illegal in my area, hard to move about due to weight, too much >fuel really. >Option 2: use 5 gallon fuel containers. >Pros: legal, easy to move about. >Cons: not as much storing capacity, would need to stop genset to >switch fuel sources >I am leaning towards using option 2. My question is, is there any >ready made fuel line/return line adaptors for regular gas containers? >Such that if the container falls accidentally, diesel fuel would not >spill. >i >– >223/172.2/180 >     What some setups use is a multiple fuel tank system. > There is the primary ( Don’t know the proper term for it. ) tank > which is where the engine takes suction and where the fuel return > lines spew back into.  This is usually quite small, only a few gallons, > and is permanently attached. >     The next tank or tanks, have a fuel pump that pumps into the > primary tank, with a float switch to keep the primary tank at a given > level.  This way one can swap tanks easily, without having to shut > down.  It does introduce an additional point of failure. >     –Dale

Response:

I would suggest the white plastic 15 gallon containers. 15 gallons is movable by one person, full, with some effort. It has 2 bungs on top, and can have fuel line connectors installed into the sides with a bit of finagling. Steve Spence Dir., Green Trust http://www.green-trust.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > It is time for me to think about a proper and practicable fuel system > for my diesel genset. > Option 1: use a 25 gallon, 6" by 13" by 60" polyethylene fuel > tank. That would hopefully last about 2 days of 24 hour operation. > It would sit in the neighboring shed, far from sight. > Pros: one tank to take care of, cool, large capacity in a compact > format. > Cons: illegal in my area, hard to move about due to weight, too much > fuel really. > Option 2: use 5 gallon fuel containers. > Pros: legal, easy to move about. > Cons: not as much storing capacity, would need to stop genset to > switch fuel sources > I am leaning towards using option 2. My question is, is there any > ready made fuel line/return line adaptors for regular gas containers? > Such that if the container falls accidentally, diesel fuel would not > spill. > i

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > It is time for me to think about a proper and practicable fuel system > for my diesel genset. > Option 1: use a 25 gallon, 6" by 13" by 60" polyethylene fuel > tank. That would hopefully last about 2 days of 24 hour operation. > It would sit in the neighboring shed, far from sight. > Pros: one tank to take care of, cool, large capacity in a compact > format. > Cons: illegal in my area, hard to move about due to weight, too much > fuel really. > Option 2: use 5 gallon fuel containers. > Pros: legal, easy to move about. > Cons: not as much storing capacity, would need to stop genset to > switch fuel sources > I am leaning towards using option 2. My question is, is there any > ready made fuel line/return line adaptors for regular gas containers? > Such that if the container falls accidentally, diesel fuel would not > spill. > i > — > 223/172.2/180

    What some setups use is a multiple fuel tank system. There is the primary ( Don’t know the proper term for it. ) tank which is where the engine takes suction and where the fuel return lines spew back into.  This is usually quite small, only a few gallons, and is permanently attached.     The next tank or tanks, have a fuel pump that pumps into the primary tank, with a float switch to keep the primary tank at a given level.  This way one can swap tanks easily, without having to shut down.  It does introduce an additional point of failure.     –Dale

Response:

Question:

WOW! Really, really pissed off? OMG! You’re going to get a lawyer? OMG! So, you NOW consider your self an author? OMG! They must be shaking in their boots! OMG! You’re offended at insults thrown at you, imagine that! On Usenet? Get out!! These posters/people didn’nt have the nerve to, not only say, but post for all the world to see, something you find offensive and slanderous! WOW! (just a thought, but, how do plan on hiding all the offensive crap that you have posted, vis a vis your multiple aliases? What say you about that lack of honesty? Huh? Btw, what law firm do you intend to seek out for this, ever so much, egregious affront? Dewey, Contest and Screwemandhow… or,  Confront, Contestwitheverylastbreath Counterscrewemandhow? Yuk, yuk, yuk! I knew you had an over inflated opinion of yourself, BUT, this is really carrying this too far! Hey, what goes around, comes around, bigtits! LMFAO! Oh My! Just see what happens to a troll when any legitimate poster is suddenly prone to flattery. Still shaking my head EMc — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

I feel your pain my dear Eileen I think I have been around a lot longer than the some of the so called *Experts* of RTC. One thing for sure I have seen a lot of this Troll vs. Expert Conflicts in the past. Take Both Golhabers, Quint, Berlin and FANG, Parsons, Sunny, they were nothing till they got here. I gave them all what they wanted, ATTENTION, I treated them like they treated me and when it got to hot for them they cried and made more worthless friends. Face the facts Eileen, they are only here for a good deal on a vacation. If they have to get together to get it done, so be it. Like going to parties that you really don’t want to be there so you just smile all night. As long as the price is worth it then they have friends and if you follow them to another area on the net that will ensure 2 things, you will have friends and price breaks. As you say BFD. I only gave them what they wanted and it did not cost them a thing. They are so sweet on the internet and behind the keyboard the are assholes. I can’t even remember the number of times I received e-mails talking behind Arlene in FLA back. Remember when her hubby went nuts with a gun? They dropped her like a hot potatoes. Some friends? That’s when she needed most. Great group, Ya Think? I could give a shit. Call me what you will, sick your lawyers on me, Plonk me, Talk behind my back, even wish me poor health and death like that slut Goldharber, I really don’t give a shit. I can’t express that enough. But I will retaliate anyway I want and you or anyone else will have an up hill battle. As George would say, "   You can fight with a pig and win, but when the battle is over, you are both covered in mud…. and the pig LIKES mud"! And I will add, The Pigs will be back because they miss the mud. They have returned Eileen, they make there presents know by posting about us TROLLS on the yahoo group. I know they miss us and we miss them. Here is another one, " Build it and they will come" This is only a start. I could go on and on. Yes we have quite a crew here. Fred the Troll, who By the way, doesn’t need to team up with any one to make trouble as stated else where. I am a big boy now.

Response:

> She obviously isn’t in with the IN crowd

Eileen is "in" as "in a state of constant confusion."

Response:

> WOW! Really, really pissed off? OMG! > You’re going to get a lawyer? OMG! So, you NOW consider your self an author?

The whole post flew right over your drugaddled head, NutCase. > Still shaking my head > EMc

To see if there are any brains in it.

Response:

>> But I can ask, what the hell is a doc dance? > Apparently, it’s some kind of recognition that one is going on a > cruise when the cruise documents arrive at one’s home (as they > should), despite the fact that this very same person was the one who > booked the cruise in the first place; hence, it shouldn’t come as such > a surprise after all, now should it? > Karen

If you book with Cruisequick, you can get immediate eDocs so you had better have fast feet.

Response:

> Is there no end to your hypocrisy??

You keep coming back for more, don’t you, NutCase? You’re not only a moron, you’re sprinting to be the Fool On The Hill. You win.

Response:

> That’s just ONE of the asinine statements you made in your rant below.

Another one with a sense of clarity = to the Mississippi River. VROOOOOM! Hear that? That’s this original post blowing right by your empty head.

Response:

> And I will add, The Pigs will be back because they miss the mud.

I see you saw that Becca has already wallowed back.

Response:

> Let’s not forget, karens; She’s also an asshole, a hateful, asshole, at that.

I defer professional asshole detection to you. What’s it like with your head up there, in yours?

Response:

Is there no end to your hypocrisy?? You are such a loudmouth, blowhard. Do you see "them" bothering you and your only "mouth piece?parrot" karens?? No! You and your girlfriend Karens are just as guilty of the crime, Usenet crime, of using this board, newsgroup, etc., as an email or IM vehicle. Really, you 2 are like a tag team… see a post from one of you, almost, instantly.. see a post from the other… Seems, more than, a bit disingenuous, for you two ARE just as guilty, troublemakers, to accuse anyone else of michevious hijinks, let alone the hateful, vindictive bullshit you post in the name of Usenet/RTC protocol, all the while, ignoring Usenet protocol, yourselves. Whatsamatter? The very poster/posters you’d like to ridicule aren’t responding? Hard to think it’s NOT that….after all, they haven’t…. YOU on the other hand, seem to be going nuts by their very absence. Let’s not forget, karens, you are just as much as a sneak that you claim they are..  Talk about your "secret girlsclub"…you are, very, very,  much guilty of the same thing….email sent behind the scenes, unsolicited. There we go again, how else would Big Tits even know of any such behind-the-scenes bullshit/gossip? Try explain’ that! Her? (Partner in crime, troll, she who uses many aliases, previously and then not only demands but expects others to overlook the fact that she posted for a very long time as a troll). You must, really, really be alone AND subject to flattery … I feel sorry for you, almost. She’s a whore.. acts like a whore, smells like a whore.. has small flashes of insight.. BFD! Just enough flashes to appeal to some regular  posters who should know better, ego aside, she’s a hateful bigot, homophobe and, yes, a racists. I guess it doesn’t take much to impress you… sad, considering your oft stated high-fahlutin preferences. And, very hypocritical. How DO you reconcile her stated and well known views with your, so-called inclusive of all groups, views? GAAAH! She’s also an asshole, a hateful, asshole, at that. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

>>>What we say on this ng should remain on this ng.<<<??????

That’s just ONE of the asinine statements you made in your rant below.  The whole thing would be laughable but I’m afraid you’re actually taking yourself serious so in  that case it’s just plain pathetic! I haven’t been on this newsgroup long, but it’s been long enough to know who the trouble makers and downright rude/vulgar regulars are.  I was here to learn what I need to know about taking my first cruise so I kept my nose out of the petty and child like banter but this is just too much.  I also know you’re going to shoot back with what you think will hurt and humiliate me. Go right ahead.  It’s really going to hurt no one but yourself, altho I don’t expect you to realize it any time soon. One of the description of newsgroups I ran across on Google said "…Many of them cover professional subjects and societies and are rich sources of business information; others are junk and contain little but mindless drivel".  Junk and mindless drivel…hummm, that pretty well describes a LOT of the messages in this newsgroup…including the one to which I’m replying! I think I’ll get my cruise information elsewhere. Monica

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You be the judge. > The person who is taking my posts and posting them on the GCC000 is Becca, > former RTCer. The coward is hiding/lurking on Usenet. What we say on this > ng should remain on this ng. Those who read it on the GCC0000 and comment > on it have no scruples what so ever. What is said here and then posted to > the GCCOOO without the authors permisson, may be a violation of the > Copy-write laws. This is a not private group, by that I mean that one has > to have thick skin and brains. The GCC000 is a not private group, anyone > can join, and what is said there is public domain. I need to talk to a > lawyer but taking information from a non private group and publishing it to > a public group without the authors permission. If it is also criminal, then > I am not afraid to press charges. > Chrissy– really pissed this time.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You be the judge. > The person who is taking my posts and posting them on the GCC000 is Becca, > former RTCer. The coward is hiding/lurking on Usenet. What we say on this > ng should remain on this ng. Those who read it on the GCC0000 and comment > on it have no scruples what so ever. What is said here and then posted to > the GCCOOO without the authors permisson, may be a violation of the > Copy-write laws. This is a not private group, by that I mean that one has > to have thick skin and brains. The GCC000 is a not private group, anyone > can join, and what is said there is public domain. I need to talk to a > lawyer but taking information from a non private group and publishing it > to > a public group without the authors permission. If it is also criminal, > then > I am not afraid to press charges. > Chrissy– really pissed this time. > Whoa there Chrissy. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on GGC0000 like > Becca then posted to the RTC what you see going on there. Naughty Chrissy. > Whoa there Becca. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on Usenet then posted > to the GGC0000 what you see going on in RTC. You decided to leave but it > looks like you haven’t left at all. Naughty Becca. Hands of the hubbies, > grrl. > Sorry Sweetie, upon advice from my legal department I can not comment on > this.

You got a whole dept of lawyers? Nothing illegal about my post. I didn’t copy anyone’s post however Becca cannot claim the same thing. Hence, Becca=hypocrite. >But I can ask, what the hell is a doc dance? Is this some sort of > weight loss aerobics program for the challenged? Should I do this?

Up to you. Might be "Copy-writed" by a MENSA genious so I’d be careful. Ask the dep’t.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You be the judge. > The person who is taking my posts and posting them on the GCC000 is Becca, > former RTCer. The coward is hiding/lurking on Usenet. What we say on this > ng should remain on this ng. Those who read it on the GCC0000 and comment > on it have no scruples what so ever. What is said here and then posted to > the GCCOOO without the authors permisson, may be a violation of the > Copy-write laws. This is a not private group, by that I mean that one has > to have thick skin and brains. The GCC000 is a not private group, anyone > can join, and what is said there is public domain. I need to talk to a > lawyer but taking information from a non private group and publishing it > to > a public group without the authors permission. If it is also criminal, > then > I am not afraid to press charges. > Chrissy– really pissed this time. > Whoa there Chrissy. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on GGC0000 like > Becca then posted to the RTC what you see going on there. Naughty Chrissy. > Whoa there Becca. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on Usenet then posted > to the GGC0000 what you see going on in RTC. You decided to leave but it > looks like you haven’t left at all. Naughty Becca. Hands of the hubbies, > grrl.

Sorry Sweetie, upon advice from my legal department I can not comment on this. But I can ask, what the hell is a doc dance? Is this some sort of weight loss aerobics program for the challenged? Should I do this? Maybe I could get my slut with the ethnic nose, who is one of them,  to get down and boogie. She has a fat ass and is always down, but never boogieing. If you get my drift.

Response:

You be the judge. The person who is taking my posts and posting them on the GCC000 is Becca, former RTCer. The coward is hiding/lurking on Usenet. What we say on this ng should remain on this ng. Those who read it on the GCC0000 and comment on it have no scruples what so ever. What is said here and then posted to the GCCOOO without the authors permisson, may be a violation of the Copy-write laws. This is a not private group, by that I mean that one has to have thick skin and brains. The GCC000 is a not private group, anyone can join, and what is said there is public domain. I need to talk to a lawyer but taking information from a non private group and publishing it to a public group without the authors permission. If it is also criminal, then I am not afraid to press charges. Chrissy– really pissed this time. Whoa there Chrissy. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on GGC0000 like Becca then posted to the RTC what you see going on there. Naughty Chrissy. Whoa there Becca. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on Usenet then posted to the GGC0000 what you see going on in RTC. You decided to leave but it looks like you haven’t left at all. Naughty Becca. Hands of the hubbies, grrl.

Response:

You be the judge. The person who is taking my posts and posting them on the GCC000 is Becca, former RTCer. The coward is hiding/lurking on Usenet. What we say on this ng should remain on this ng. Those who read it on the GCC0000 and comment on it have no scruples what so ever. What is said here and then posted to the GCCOOO without the authors permisson, may be a violation of the Copy-write laws. This is a not private group, by that I mean that one has to have thick skin and brains. The GCC000 is a not private group, anyone can join, and what is said there is public domain. I need to talk to a lawyer but taking information from a non private group and publishing it to a public group without the authors permission. If it is also criminal, then I am not afraid to press charges. Chrissy– really pissed this time. Whoa there Chrissy. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on GGC0000 like Becca then posted to the RTC what you see going on there. Naughty Chrissy. Whoa there Becca. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on Usenet then posted to the GGC0000 what you see going on in RTC. You decided to leave but it looks like you haven’t left at all. Naughty Becca. Hands of the hubbies, grrl.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You be the judge. > The person who is taking my posts and posting them on the GCC000 is Becca, > former RTCer. The coward is hiding/lurking on Usenet. What we say on this > ng should remain on this ng. Those who read it on the GCC0000 and comment > on it have no scruples what so ever. What is said here and then posted to > the GCCOOO without the authors permisson, may be a violation of the > Copy-write laws. This is a not private group, by that I mean that one has > to have thick skin and brains. The GCC000 is a not private group, anyone > can join, and what is said there is public domain. I need to talk to a > lawyer but taking information from a non private group and publishing it > to > a public group without the authors permission. If it is also criminal, > then > I am not afraid to press charges. > Chrissy– really pissed this time. > Whoa there Chrissy. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on GGC0000 like > Becca then posted to the RTC what you see going on there. Naughty Chrissy. > Whoa there Becca. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on Usenet then posted > to the GGC0000 what you see going on in RTC. You decided to leave but it > looks like you haven’t left at all. Naughty Becca. Hands of the hubbies, > grrl.

Sorry Sweetie, upon advice from my legal department I can not comment on this. But I can ask, what the hell is a doc dance? Is this some sort of weight loss aerobics program for the challenged? Should I do this? Maybe I could get my slut with the ethnic nose, who is one of them,  to get down and boogie. She has a fat ass and is always down, but never boogieing. If you get my drift.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You be the judge. > The person who is taking my posts and posting them on the GCC000 is Becca, > former RTCer. The coward is hiding/lurking on Usenet. What we say on this > ng should remain on this ng. Those who read it on the GCC0000 and comment > on it have no scruples what so ever. What is said here and then posted to > the GCCOOO without the authors permisson, may be a violation of the > Copy-write laws. This is a not private group, by that I mean that one has > to have thick skin and brains. The GCC000 is a not private group, anyone > can join, and what is said there is public domain. I need to talk to a > lawyer but taking information from a non private group and publishing it > to > a public group without the authors permission. If it is also criminal, > then > I am not afraid to press charges. > Chrissy– really pissed this time. > Whoa there Chrissy. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on GGC0000 like > Becca then posted to the RTC what you see going on there. Naughty Chrissy. > Whoa there Becca. You’d be a hypocrite if you lurked on Usenet then posted > to the GGC0000 what you see going on in RTC. You decided to leave but it > looks like you haven’t left at all. Naughty Becca. Hands of the hubbies, > grrl. > Sorry Sweetie, upon advice from my legal department I can not comment on > this.

You got a whole dept of lawyers? Nothing illegal about my post. I didn’t copy anyone’s post however Becca cannot claim the same thing. Hence, Becca=hypocrite. >But I can ask, what the hell is a doc dance? Is this some sort of > weight loss aerobics program for the challenged? Should I do this?

Up to you. Might be "Copy-writed" by a MENSA genious so I’d be careful. Ask the dep’t.

Response:

>>>What we say on this ng should remain on this ng.<<<??????

That’s just ONE of the asinine statements you made in your rant below.  The whole thing would be laughable but I’m afraid you’re actually taking yourself serious so in  that case it’s just plain pathetic! I haven’t been on this newsgroup long, but it’s been long enough to know who the trouble makers and downright rude/vulgar regulars are.  I was here to learn what I need to know about taking my first cruise so I kept my nose out of the petty and child like banter but this is just too much.  I also know you’re going to shoot back with what you think will hurt and humiliate me. Go right ahead.  It’s really going to hurt no one but yourself, altho I don’t expect you to realize it any time soon. One of the description of newsgroups I ran across on Google said "…Many of them cover professional subjects and societies and are rich sources of business information; others are junk and contain little but mindless drivel".  Junk and mindless drivel…hummm, that pretty well describes a LOT of the messages in this newsgroup…including the one to which I’m replying! I think I’ll get my cruise information elsewhere. Monica

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You be the judge. > The person who is taking my posts and posting them on the GCC000 is Becca, > former RTCer. The coward is hiding/lurking on Usenet. What we say on this > ng should remain on this ng. Those who read it on the GCC0000 and comment > on it have no scruples what so ever. What is said here and then posted to > the GCCOOO without the authors permisson, may be a violation of the > Copy-write laws. This is a not private group, by that I mean that one has > to have thick skin and brains. The GCC000 is a not private group, anyone > can join, and what is said there is public domain. I need to talk to a > lawyer but taking information from a non private group and publishing it to > a public group without the authors permission. If it is also criminal, then > I am not afraid to press charges. > Chrissy– really pissed this time.

Response:

Is there no end to your hypocrisy?? You are such a loudmouth, blowhard. Do you see "them" bothering you and your only "mouth piece?parrot" karens?? No! You and your girlfriend Karens are just as guilty of the crime, Usenet crime, of using this board, newsgroup, etc., as an email or IM vehicle. Really, you 2 are like a tag team… see a post from one of you, almost, instantly.. see a post from the other… Seems, more than, a bit disingenuous, for you two ARE just as guilty, troublemakers, to accuse anyone else of michevious hijinks, let alone the hateful, vindictive bullshit you post in the name of Usenet/RTC protocol, all the while, ignoring Usenet protocol, yourselves. Whatsamatter? The very poster/posters you’d like to ridicule aren’t responding? Hard to think it’s NOT that….after all, they haven’t…. YOU on the other hand, seem to be going nuts by their very absence. Let’s not forget, karens, you are just as much as a sneak that you claim they are..  Talk about your "secret girlsclub"…you are, very, very,  much guilty of the same thing….email sent behind the scenes, unsolicited. There we go again, how else would Big Tits even know of any such behind-the-scenes bullshit/gossip? Try explain’ that! Her? (Partner in crime, troll, she who uses many aliases, previously and then not only demands but expects others to overlook the fact that she posted for a very long time as a troll). You must, really, really be alone AND subject to flattery … I feel sorry for you, almost. She’s a whore.. acts like a whore, smells like a whore.. has small flashes of insight.. BFD! Just enough flashes to appeal to some regular  posters who should know better, ego aside, she’s a hateful bigot, homophobe and, yes, a racists. I guess it doesn’t take much to impress you… sad, considering your oft stated high-fahlutin preferences. And, very hypocritical. How DO you reconcile her stated and well known views with your, so-called inclusive of all groups, views? GAAAH! She’s also an asshole, a hateful, asshole, at that. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

WOW! Really, really pissed off? OMG! You’re going to get a lawyer? OMG! So, you NOW consider your self an author? OMG! They must be shaking in their boots! OMG! You’re offended at insults thrown at you, imagine that! On Usenet? Get out!! These posters/people didn’nt have the nerve to, not only say, but post for all the world to see, something you find offensive and slanderous! WOW! (just a thought, but, how do plan on hiding all the offensive crap that you have posted, vis a vis your multiple aliases? What say you about that lack of honesty? Huh? Btw, what law firm do you intend to seek out for this, ever so much, egregious affront? Dewey, Contest and Screwemandhow… or,  Confront, Contestwitheverylastbreath Counterscrewemandhow? Yuk, yuk, yuk! I knew you had an over inflated opinion of yourself, BUT, this is really carrying this too far! Hey, what goes around, comes around, bigtits! LMFAO! Oh My! Just see what happens to a troll when any legitimate poster is suddenly prone to flattery. Still shaking my head EMc — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

I feel your pain my dear Eileen I think I have been around a lot longer than the some of the so called *Experts* of RTC. One thing for sure I have seen a lot of this Troll vs. Expert Conflicts in the past. Take Both Golhabers, Quint, Berlin and FANG, Parsons, Sunny, they were nothing till they got here. I gave them all what they wanted, ATTENTION, I treated them like they treated me and when it got to hot for them they cried and made more worthless friends. Face the facts Eileen, they are only here for a good deal on a vacation. If they have to get together to get it done, so be it. Like going to parties that you really don’t want to be there so you just smile all night. As long as the price is worth it then they have friends and if you follow them to another area on the net that will ensure 2 things, you will have friends and price breaks. As you say BFD. I only gave them what they wanted and it did not cost them a thing. They are so sweet on the internet and behind the keyboard the are assholes. I can’t even remember the number of times I received e-mails talking behind Arlene in FLA back. Remember when her hubby went nuts with a gun? They dropped her like a hot potatoes. Some friends? That’s when she needed most. Great group, Ya Think? I could give a shit. Call me what you will, sick your lawyers on me, Plonk me, Talk behind my back, even wish me poor health and death like that slut Goldharber, I really don’t give a shit. I can’t express that enough. But I will retaliate anyway I want and you or anyone else will have an up hill battle. As George would say, "   You can fight with a pig and win, but when the battle is over, you are both covered in mud…. and the pig LIKES mud"! And I will add, The Pigs will be back because they miss the mud. They have returned Eileen, they make there presents know by posting about us TROLLS on the yahoo group. I know they miss us and we miss them. Here is another one, " Build it and they will come" This is only a start. I could go on and on. Yes we have quite a crew here. Fred the Troll, who By the way, doesn’t need to team up with any one to make trouble as stated else where. I am a big boy now.

Response:

> She obviously isn’t in with the IN crowd

Eileen is "in" as "in a state of constant confusion."

Response:

> WOW! Really, really pissed off? OMG! > You’re going to get a lawyer? OMG! So, you NOW consider your self an author?

The whole post flew right over your drugaddled head, NutCase. > Still shaking my head > EMc

To see if there are any brains in it.

Response:

>> But I can ask, what the hell is a doc dance? > Apparently, it’s some kind of recognition that one is going on a > cruise when the cruise documents arrive at one’s home (as they > should), despite the fact that this very same person was the one who > booked the cruise in the first place; hence, it shouldn’t come as such > a surprise after all, now should it? > Karen

If you book with Cruisequick, you can get immediate eDocs so you had better have fast feet.

Response:

> Is there no end to your hypocrisy??

You keep coming back for more, don’t you, NutCase? You’re not only a moron, you’re sprinting to be the Fool On The Hill. You win.

Response:

> That’s just ONE of the asinine statements you made in your rant below.

Another one with a sense of clarity = to the Mississippi River. VROOOOOM! Hear that? That’s this original post blowing right by your empty head.

Response:

> And I will add, The Pigs will be back because they miss the mud.

I see you saw that Becca has already wallowed back.

Response:

> Let’s not forget, karens; She’s also an asshole, a hateful, asshole, at that.

I defer professional asshole detection to you. What’s it like with your head up there, in yours?

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > Indeed, children have been making and flying remote-controlled model > > > > airplanes for decades…. in the west anyway. > > > I have a radio controlled jet. It uses a micro turbine engine I built > > > froma kit I bought online; the rest of it I designed and built myself > > > from scratch-it resembles an f16. Puts Iran’s efforts to shame. > > Awesome.  Speaking of F-16s, I hope your model has better control than > > the real one that fired 25 rounds at that school in NJ the other day.   > > Truth is stranger than fiction. > Just shocked. I understand(heard) that was totally pilot error and > training missions have been suspended over schools for now. This is > good. > Yes a really good thing!  Thank Goodness no students were present or > injured.

I hear this was a nighttime exercise but the technology of the plane made the target appear to be as clear as daylight. The error was that the pilot managed to be 2 1/2 miles off target. The Janitor was working at the time. As luck would have this artillary did not explode(just burrowed) on impact.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > Indeed, children have been making and flying remote-controlled model > > > airplanes for decades…. in the west anyway. > > I have a radio controlled jet. It uses a micro turbine engine I built > > froma kit I bought online; the rest of it I designed and built myself > > from scratch-it resembles an f16. Puts Iran’s efforts to shame. > Awesome.  Speaking of F-16s, I hope your model has better control than > the real one that fired 25 rounds at that school in NJ the other day.   > Truth is stranger than fiction. > Just shocked. I understand(heard) that was totally pilot error and > training missions have been suspended over schools for now. This is > good.

Yes a really good thing!  Thank Goodness no students were present or injured.

Response:

> > > Indeed, children have been making and flying remote-controlled model > > airplanes for decades…. in the west anyway. > I have a radio controlled jet. It uses a micro turbine engine I built > froma kit I bought online; the rest of it I designed and built myself > from scratch-it resembles an f16. Puts Iran’s efforts to shame. > Awesome.  Speaking of F-16s, I hope your model has better control than > the real one that fired 25 rounds at that school in NJ the other day.   > Truth is stranger than fiction.

Just shocked. I understand(heard) that was totally pilot error and training missions have been suspended over schools for now. This is good.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that >>crashed into the sea. >Well actually not.  It was from Iran (Persians not arabs) allegedly. >Whether that was the point of actual origin, I am not sure. > It most likely is. Iran’s been making UAV’s for a while and funding and > supplying Hizbollah for years.  Iran is essentially fighting a low intensite > localized conflict through Hizbollah. > UAV’s are a remarkably simple thing to make if all it does is take pictures. > Iran’s version is nothing like the Predator, which can be flown over Lebanon > and deploy a missile, all while the operator sits in Tampa Bay.

Of course the Drones weren’t an American invention, the Germans were the first ones to develop the UAVs (along with a long list of other killer stuff!). — The Best in Message Board Discussions http://www.comicboards.org/religion Bush is re-elected, fly the flag upside down! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Response:

>>Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that >crashed into the sea. > Well actually not.  It was from Iran (Persians not arabs) allegedly.   > Whether that was the point of actual origin, I am not sure.

I am certainly not defending the previous poster, but the Iranians, Egyptians and Lebanese are all considered Arabic, for all linguistical and cultural purposes.  This has been called the Arbatization of the region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab — The Best in Message Board Discussions http://www.comicboards.org/religion Bush is re-elected, fly the flag upside down! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Response:

> > Indeed, children have been making and flying remote-controlled model > airplanes for decades…. in the west anyway. > I have a radio controlled jet. It uses a micro turbine engine I built > froma kit I bought online; the rest of it I designed and built myself > from scratch-it resembles an f16. Puts Iran’s efforts to shame.

Awesome.  Speaking of F-16s, I hope your model has better control than the real one that fired 25 rounds at that school in NJ the other day.   Truth is stranger than fiction.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that >>>crashed into the sea. >>Well actually not.  It was from Iran (Persians not arabs) allegedly. >>Whether that was the point of actual origin, I am not sure. >It most likely is. Iran’s been making UAV’s for a while and funding and >supplying Hizbollah for years.  Iran is essentially fighting a low intensite >localized conflict through Hizbollah. >UAV’s are a remarkably simple thing to make if all it does is take pictures. >Iran’s version is nothing like the Predator, which can be flown over Lebanon >and deploy a missile, all while the operator sits in Tampa Bay. > Indeed, children have been making and flying remote-controlled model > airplanes for decades…. in the west anyway.

I have a radio controlled jet. It uses a micro turbine engine I built froma kit I bought online; the rest of it I designed and built myself from scratch-it resembles an f16. Puts Iran’s efforts to shame.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that > crashed into the sea.  The height of Arab brilliance and technological > know-how.  Meanwhile, the Israelis are building tanks and sending up > satellites.  If Islam wasn’t such a wretched ideology, maybe the Arabs > would have a little more talent. > Zulfiqar main battle tank > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zulfiqar.htm > Ababil UAV > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ababil.htm > Mohajer UAV > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/mohajer.htm > Iran says will launch first satellite in April [2005] > http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040902084238.7tlw4kbq.html

These are all pretty much toy remote controlled planes; nothing like what is being worked on in the West. I have seen some of the UAV projects BAE in the UK are working on and they are so far advanced of this garbage it is pitiful.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that > > crashed into the sea. > Well actually not.  It was from Iran (Persians not arabs) allegedly. > Whether that was the point of actual origin, I am not sure. > It most likely is. Iran’s been making UAV’s for a while and funding and > supplying Hizbollah for years.  Iran is essentially fighting a low intensite > localized conflict through Hizbollah. > UAV’s are a remarkably simple thing to make if all it does is take pictures. > Iran’s version is nothing like the Predator, which can be flown over Lebanon > and deploy a missile, all while the operator sits in Tampa Bay.

Indeed, children have been making and flying remote-controlled model airplanes for decades…. in the west anyway.

Response:

> Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that > crashed into the sea.

Well actually not.  It was from Iran (Persians not arabs) allegedly.   Whether that was the point of actual origin, I am not sure.

Response:

> Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that > crashed into the sea. > Well actually not.  It was from Iran (Persians not arabs) allegedly. > Whether that was the point of actual origin, I am not sure.

It most likely is. Iran’s been making UAV’s for a while and funding and supplying Hizbollah for years.  Iran is essentially fighting a low intensite localized conflict through Hizbollah. UAV’s are a remarkably simple thing to make if all it does is take pictures. Iran’s version is nothing like the Predator, which can be flown over Lebanon and deploy a missile, all while the operator sits in Tampa Bay.

Response:

> Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that > crashed into the sea.  The height of Arab brilliance and technological > know-how.  Meanwhile, the Israelis are building tanks and sending up > satellites.  If Islam wasn’t such a wretched ideology, maybe the Arabs would > have a little more talent.

Zulfiqar main battle tank http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zulfiqar.htm Ababil UAV http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ababil.htm Mohajer UAV http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/mohajer.htm Iran says will launch first satellite in April [2005] http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040902084238.7tlw4kbq.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Oh well, they are one notch above Africa, at least they can feel superior to > someone…. >Hizbullah Drone Leaves Israeli Air Force Red-Faced >OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, November 8 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The >flight over Israel of an unmanned Hizbullah spy plane has deeply >embarrassed Tel Aviv’s air force, which has prided itself for decades >on having total control of the region’s skies. >"Breach in aerial security. Air force embarrassed. Hezbollah sees >all," read Monday’s front-page headline in Israel’s top-selling daily >Yediot Aharonot. >"And what if next time the drone carries a bomb?" Asked the daily >Maariv, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP). >Hizbullah announced Sunday, November 7, that it had sent "a Mirsad-1 >reconnaissance plane over northern Palestine (now Israel)" in >retaliation for repeated violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel. >Hizbullah also warned that it could carry out more such flights. >After several hours of complete silence from the Israeli military >about the incident, the army eventually confirmed the overflight of >its territory. >"This morning, an Iranian UAV (unmanned air vehicle) operated by the >Hizbullah terror organization infiltrated into Israel over the western >Galilee," a military spokesman said in a statement. >The army said the spy plane, launched from southern Lebanon, flew for >about 15 minutes along Israel’s northern Mediterranean coast until it >reached the coastal resort of Nahariyah. >The drone is said to have later crashed in southern Lebanon; however, >Hizbullah asserted that it returned safe to its base. >Failure >Ha’aretz daily commented that Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon, Military >Intelligence Chief Major General Aharon Ze’evi Farkash and Air Force >Commander Major General Eliezer Shkedi all failed at reading Hassan >Nasrallah’s potential modes of action. >"In such an instance, the entire security establishment would have >been up in arms about the breach in security, because the operator of >the drone could easily have crashed it into a ground target – as part >of a sort of targeted assassination," the paper said. >"It is enough to imagine what would have happened if, on the ground in >Nahariya, with the drone in flight, not only regular civilians were >walking around, but perhaps the prime minister’s motorcade was parked >on the banks of the city’s small river." >It added that the incident has proved that sophisticated electronic >systems cannot entirely foil clever underhanded tricks. >According to the media, the incident represents not only proof that >there are holes in Israel’s air defenses but also a failure by >intelligence services to detect Hizbullah’s preparations for such a >mission. >Emergency Meeting >Opposition Labor parliamentary deputy Eitan Cabel has asked the leader >of the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee, Yuval >Steinitz, to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the spy plane >infiltration. >"We must know immediately how it’s possible for such a rudimentary >device to pass through the Israeli army’s heavy air defenses, in which >billions have been invested," AFP quoted Cabel as saying. >Reserve Major General and former Air Force commander Eitan Ben Eliyahu >said he cannot figure out how the drone has made it to Nahariyah. >"It should have been identified earlier," he wrote in a commentary in >Yediot Aharonot. >"I expect that (Hezbollah’s) appetite will increase in the wake of >this success and we need to be prepared for that — and immediately >so," Ben Eliyahu added. >Israel considers the presence at its northern border of Hizbullah >resistance fighters, backed by Iran and Syria, as a strategic threat, >especially as they possess long-range missiles that can reach the >northern port of Haifa. >"If we let down our guard for even a moment, we will find that this >tiny bird, the drone, has turned into an eagle," Yediot Aharonot >warned in a commentary. >On November 25, 1987, a Palestinian aboard a ULM (ultralight motorized >aircraft) successfully entered northern Israel from southern Lebanon, >landing at night on a military base and killing six soldiers before >being shot dead. >Ever since, Israeli anti-aircraft defenses in the area have been >stepped up. The military has an armored vehicle equipped with systems >that can detect small low-flying aircraft, and Stinger surface-to-air >missiles to intercept them. >http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-11/08/article06.shtml

Response:

Ain’t that somethin’…..the Arabs managed to fly a toy airplane that crashed into the sea.  The height of Arab brilliance and technological know-how.  Meanwhile, the Israelis are building tanks and sending up satellites.  If Islam wasn’t such a wretched ideology, maybe the Arabs would have a little more talent. Oh well, they are one notch above Africa, at least they can feel superior to someone….

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hizbullah Drone Leaves Israeli Air Force Red-Faced > OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, November 8 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The > flight over Israel of an unmanned Hizbullah spy plane has deeply > embarrassed Tel Aviv’s air force, which has prided itself for decades > on having total control of the region’s skies. > "Breach in aerial security. Air force embarrassed. Hezbollah sees > all," read Monday’s front-page headline in Israel’s top-selling daily > Yediot Aharonot. > "And what if next time the drone carries a bomb?" Asked the daily > Maariv, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP). > Hizbullah announced Sunday, November 7, that it had sent "a Mirsad-1 > reconnaissance plane over northern Palestine (now Israel)" in > retaliation for repeated violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel. > Hizbullah also warned that it could carry out more such flights. > After several hours of complete silence from the Israeli military > about the incident, the army eventually confirmed the overflight of > its territory. > "This morning, an Iranian UAV (unmanned air vehicle) operated by the > Hizbullah terror organization infiltrated into Israel over the western > Galilee," a military spokesman said in a statement. > The army said the spy plane, launched from southern Lebanon, flew for > about 15 minutes along Israel’s northern Mediterranean coast until it > reached the coastal resort of Nahariyah. > The drone is said to have later crashed in southern Lebanon; however, > Hizbullah asserted that it returned safe to its base. > Failure > Ha’aretz daily commented that Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon, Military > Intelligence Chief Major General Aharon Ze’evi Farkash and Air Force > Commander Major General Eliezer Shkedi all failed at reading Hassan > Nasrallah’s potential modes of action. > "In such an instance, the entire security establishment would have > been up in arms about the breach in security, because the operator of > the drone could easily have crashed it into a ground target – as part > of a sort of targeted assassination," the paper said. > "It is enough to imagine what would have happened if, on the ground in > Nahariya, with the drone in flight, not only regular civilians were > walking around, but perhaps the prime minister’s motorcade was parked > on the banks of the city’s small river." > It added that the incident has proved that sophisticated electronic > systems cannot entirely foil clever underhanded tricks. > According to the media, the incident represents not only proof that > there are holes in Israel’s air defenses but also a failure by > intelligence services to detect Hizbullah’s preparations for such a > mission. > Emergency Meeting > Opposition Labor parliamentary deputy Eitan Cabel has asked the leader > of the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee, Yuval > Steinitz, to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the spy plane > infiltration. > "We must know immediately how it’s possible for such a rudimentary > device to pass through the Israeli army’s heavy air defenses, in which > billions have been invested," AFP quoted Cabel as saying. > Reserve Major General and former Air Force commander Eitan Ben Eliyahu > said he cannot figure out how the drone has made it to Nahariyah. > "It should have been identified earlier," he wrote in a commentary in > Yediot Aharonot. > "I expect that (Hezbollah’s) appetite will increase in the wake of > this success and we need to be prepared for that — and immediately > so," Ben Eliyahu added. > Israel considers the presence at its northern border of Hizbullah > resistance fighters, backed by Iran and Syria, as a strategic threat, > especially as they possess long-range missiles that can reach the > northern port of Haifa. > "If we let down our guard for even a moment, we will find that this > tiny bird, the drone, has turned into an eagle," Yediot Aharonot > warned in a commentary. > On November 25, 1987, a Palestinian aboard a ULM (ultralight motorized > aircraft) successfully entered northern Israel from southern Lebanon, > landing at night on a military base and killing six soldiers before > being shot dead. > Ever since, Israeli anti-aircraft defenses in the area have been > stepped up. The military has an armored vehicle equipped with systems > that can detect small low-flying aircraft, and Stinger surface-to-air > missiles to intercept them. > http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-11/08/article06.shtml

Response:

this is the best news in a long time. i read about it all day yesterday – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hizbullah Drone Leaves Israeli Air Force Red-Faced > OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, November 8 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The > flight over Israel of an unmanned Hizbullah spy plane has deeply > embarrassed Tel Aviv’s air force, which has prided itself for decades > on having total control of the region’s skies. > "Breach in aerial security. Air force embarrassed. Hezbollah sees > all," read Monday’s front-page headline in Israel’s top-selling daily > Yediot Aharonot. > "And what if next time the drone carries a bomb?" Asked the daily > Maariv, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP). > Hizbullah announced Sunday, November 7, that it had sent "a Mirsad-1 > reconnaissance plane over northern Palestine (now Israel)" in > retaliation for repeated violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel. > Hizbullah also warned that it could carry out more such flights. > After several hours of complete silence from the Israeli military > about the incident, the army eventually confirmed the overflight of > its territory. > "This morning, an Iranian UAV (unmanned air vehicle) operated by the > Hizbullah terror organization infiltrated into Israel over the western > Galilee," a military spokesman said in a statement. > The army said the spy plane, launched from southern Lebanon, flew for > about 15 minutes along Israel’s northern Mediterranean coast until it > reached the coastal resort of Nahariyah. > The drone is said to have later crashed in southern Lebanon; however, > Hizbullah asserted that it returned safe to its base. > Failure > Ha’aretz daily commented that Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon, Military > Intelligence Chief Major General Aharon Ze’evi Farkash and Air Force > Commander Major General Eliezer Shkedi all failed at reading Hassan > Nasrallah’s potential modes of action. > "In such an instance, the entire security establishment would have > been up in arms about the breach in security, because the operator of > the drone could easily have crashed it into a ground target – as part > of a sort of targeted assassination," the paper said. > "It is enough to imagine what would have happened if, on the ground in > Nahariya, with the drone in flight, not only regular civilians were > walking around, but perhaps the prime minister’s motorcade was parked > on the banks of the city’s small river." > It added that the incident has proved that sophisticated electronic > systems cannot entirely foil clever underhanded tricks. > According to the media, the incident represents not only proof that > there are holes in Israel’s air defenses but also a failure by > intelligence services to detect Hizbullah’s preparations for such a > mission. > Emergency Meeting > Opposition Labor parliamentary deputy Eitan Cabel has asked the leader > of the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee, Yuval > Steinitz, to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the spy plane > infiltration. > "We must know immediately how it’s possible for such a rudimentary > device to pass through the Israeli army’s heavy air defenses, in which > billions have been invested," AFP quoted Cabel as saying. > Reserve Major General and former Air Force commander Eitan Ben Eliyahu > said he cannot figure out how the drone has made it to Nahariyah. > "It should have been identified earlier," he wrote in a commentary in > Yediot Aharonot. > "I expect that (Hezbollah’s) appetite will increase in the wake of > this success and we need to be prepared for that — and immediately > so," Ben Eliyahu added. > Israel considers the presence at its northern border of Hizbullah > resistance fighters, backed by Iran and Syria, as a strategic threat, > especially as they possess long-range missiles that can reach the > northern port of Haifa. > "If we let down our guard for even a moment, we will find that this > tiny bird, the drone, has turned into an eagle," Yediot Aharonot > warned in a commentary. > On November 25, 1987, a Palestinian aboard a ULM (ultralight motorized > aircraft) successfully entered northern Israel from southern Lebanon, > landing at night on a military base and killing six soldiers before > being shot dead. > Ever since, Israeli anti-aircraft defenses in the area have been > stepped up. The military has an armored vehicle equipped with systems > that can detect small low-flying aircraft, and Stinger surface-to-air > missiles to intercept them. > http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-11/08/article06.shtml

Response:

Hizbullah Drone Leaves Israeli Air Force Red-Faced OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, November 8 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The flight over Israel of an unmanned Hizbullah spy plane has deeply embarrassed Tel Aviv’s air force, which has prided itself for decades on having total control of the region’s skies. "Breach in aerial security. Air force embarrassed. Hezbollah sees all," read Monday’s front-page headline in Israel’s top-selling daily Yediot Aharonot. "And what if next time the drone carries a bomb?" Asked the daily Maariv, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP). Hizbullah announced Sunday, November 7, that it had sent "a Mirsad-1 reconnaissance plane over northern Palestine (now Israel)" in retaliation for repeated violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel. Hizbullah also warned that it could carry out more such flights. After several hours of complete silence from the Israeli military about the incident, the army eventually confirmed the overflight of its territory. "This morning, an Iranian UAV (unmanned air vehicle) operated by the Hizbullah terror organization infiltrated into Israel over the western Galilee," a military spokesman said in a statement. The army said the spy plane, launched from southern Lebanon, flew for about 15 minutes along Israel’s northern Mediterranean coast until it reached the coastal resort of Nahariyah. The drone is said to have later crashed in southern Lebanon; however, Hizbullah asserted that it returned safe to its base. Failure Ha’aretz daily commented that Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon, Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aharon Ze’evi Farkash and Air Force Commander Major General Eliezer Shkedi all failed at reading Hassan Nasrallah’s potential modes of action. "In such an instance, the entire security establishment would have been up in arms about the breach in security, because the operator of the drone could easily have crashed it into a ground target – as part of a sort of targeted assassination," the paper said. "It is enough to imagine what would have happened if, on the ground in Nahariya, with the drone in flight, not only regular civilians were walking around, but perhaps the prime minister’s motorcade was parked on the banks of the city’s small river." It added that the incident has proved that sophisticated electronic systems cannot entirely foil clever underhanded tricks. According to the media, the incident represents not only proof that there are holes in Israel’s air defenses but also a failure by intelligence services to detect Hizbullah’s preparations for such a mission. Emergency Meeting Opposition Labor parliamentary deputy Eitan Cabel has asked the leader of the Knesset’s foreign affairs and defense committee, Yuval Steinitz, to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the spy plane infiltration. "We must know immediately how it’s possible for such a rudimentary device to pass through the Israeli army’s heavy air defenses, in which billions have been invested," AFP quoted Cabel as saying. Reserve Major General and former Air Force commander Eitan Ben Eliyahu said he cannot figure out how the drone has made it to Nahariyah. "It should have been identified earlier," he wrote in a commentary in Yediot Aharonot. "I expect that (Hezbollah’s) appetite will increase in the wake of this success and we need to be prepared for that — and immediately so," Ben Eliyahu added. Israel considers the presence at its northern border of Hizbullah resistance fighters, backed by Iran and Syria, as a strategic threat, especially as they possess long-range missiles that can reach the northern port of Haifa. "If we let down our guard for even a moment, we will find that this tiny bird, the drone, has turned into an eagle," Yediot Aharonot warned in a commentary. On November 25, 1987, a Palestinian aboard a ULM (ultralight motorized aircraft) successfully entered northern Israel from southern Lebanon, landing at night on a military base and killing six soldiers before being shot dead. Ever since, Israeli anti-aircraft defenses in the area have been stepped up. The military has an armored vehicle equipped with systems that can detect small low-flying aircraft, and Stinger surface-to-air missiles to intercept them. http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-11/08/article06.shtml

Response:

Question:

…it’d be running Rodney King style, 24/7 on every leftist media outlet in the northern hemisphere.  As it is, though… nada. Dan Rather, where are you?  Kinko’s, perhaps? Democrats Gone Wild! Posted: October 13, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Michelle Malkin

Question:

Hi, I’m looking for a quiet diesel genset with automatic transfer switch (and exercising, etc) in the 10-15WK range, any reccomendations? Thanks!

Response:

> Hi, > I’m looking for a quiet diesel genset with automatic transfer switch > (and exercising, etc) in the 10-15WK range, any reccomendations? > Thanks!

Indoor or outdoor? Pretty much you need to pick an manufacture and then ask questions about critical silencers. Which are always extra.  Insulated housings will cut noise as well. More extra bucks. I did an outdoor Pink Floyd concert and they had two shipping containers 10X30 behind the stage producing 2000 kw each. V-8 Rolls Royce engines, monsters that they were. I could touch the container and tell it was running. There was no noise at all.

Response:

Well, our Detroit Diesel meets your requirements with the exception of quiet. We are adding a muffler this week, so maybe that will meet your goals. Will keep you posted. The auto transfer switch, for $126, came from backwoods solar. Keep watch at www.green-trust.org for the unfolding story. — Steve Spence http://www.green-trust.org

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi, > I’m looking for a quiet diesel genset with automatic transfer switch > (and exercising, etc) in the 10-15WK range, any reccomendations? > Thanks!

Response:

>I did an outdoor Pink Floyd concert and they had two shipping containers >10X30 behind the stage producing 2000 kw each…

Really? >V-8 Rolls Royce engines, monsters that they were.

About 10,000 horsepower? Nick

Response:

>Indoor or outdoor?

Indoor might be interesting, can they be cooled thru a couple of basement windows near the corner of a foundation?

Response:

Vibration would be a good reason not to install indoors. Ours is 50′ from the house. We will be putting a greenhouse over it (free heat). Muffler should quiet it so we can’t hear it indoors. — Steve Spence http://www.green-trust.org

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Indoor or outdoor? > Indoor might be interesting, can they be cooled thru a couple of > basement windows near the corner of a foundation?

Response:

Question:

        <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SNIP  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There’s more to this story than memos.

 So you are admiting that documents are a fraud yet you are expecting people to believe tham anyway? That is soooo Lame! If Bush wins in November you can send a large thank u note to Dan Rather

Response:

Americans are not buying Dan Rather’s bullshit forged document story. GALLUP SHOWS BUSH BLOWOUT: *13 POINT LEAD OVER KERRY* http://makeashorterlink.com/?X4BB51D49

Response:

> What’s new about these memos is that they state that Bush’s superior > officers were aware that Bush was performing unsatisfactorily, that > they were being pressured to let Bush slide through and that they were > expected to falsify Bush’s records. > Those who worked with the memos’ author, Killian, are saying that > while the memos ed(are frauds), what they say is accurate.

Just like the old lawyer line "Of course I’m lying, but hear me out!" Harry (fair and balanced)

Response:

What’s new about these memos is that they state that Bush’s superior officers were aware that Bush was performing unsatisfactorily, that they were being pressured to let Bush slide through and that they were expected to falsify Bush’s records. Those who worked with the memos’ author, Killian, are saying that while the memos may not be authentic, what they say is accurate. Killian’s secretary is saying that she did type memos for Killian that said the same things that these memos are saying.  Killian’s immediate superior officer has said that Killian expressed the same thoughts to him that are in the memos. I think that’s the story.   Why were they being pressured?  Who was pressuring them?  We know from the memos that Lt. Colonel Staudt was pressuring them.  Was anybody pressuring Staudt?  What do we know, what isn’t being disputed, of Bush’s stint in the TANG?: Staudt, as Bush’s unit commander in 1968 staged a special ceremony for the press so he could have his picture taken administering the oath (after the official oath had been given by a Guard captain earlier.) Staudt was excited about his VIP recruit, this direct appointment, because at his staged ceremony, Bush’s father, the congressman, was standing prominently in the background. The 147th, Col. Staudt’s Texas unit, was infamous as a way out of Vietnam combat for the politically well connected and celebrity draft avoiders: Both of Sid Adger’s sons, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s son, Republican Senator John Tower’s son, and at least seven players for the Dallas Cowboys had been signed into the unit. What made Bush’s unfair, favored Guard appointment doubly reprehensible was his total lack of qualifications. Rapid selection into the Guard was reserved for applicants with exceptional experience or skills such as prior Air Force ROTC training, or special engineering, medical, or aviation skills. Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, had reviewed the Guard’s records on Bush for a special exhibit on his service after Bush became governor. Asked about Bush’s direct appointment without special skills, Hail said, "I’ve never heard of that. Generally they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons." Charles Shoemaker, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air National Guard and retired as a full colonel, said that direct appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive credentials. Asked about Bush, he said, "His name didn’t hurt, obviously. But it was a commander’s decision in those days." When Bush completed basic training, his commander approved him for a "direct appointment." That made him a 2nd Lieutenant without having to go through the usual (very difficult) Officer Candidate School. This special procedure also got Bush into flight school, despite his very low scores on aptitude tests: 25% on a pilot aptitude test (the absolute lowest acceptable grade) and 50% for navigator aptitude. Bush did score 95% on the easier and subjectively graded officer quality test, but the class average is generally 88%. http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&f… In 1968, Bush’s father was a newly minted Congressman with a highly coveted seat on the House Ways & Means Committee.  Very unusual for such an inexperienced congressman to get on that committee.  Very powerful. Just as a reference point, at the time of those memos (1973), Bush had left Congress and was named by Nixon to the Chairmanship of the RNC. This was during the trial for the Watergate plumbers

Question:

Americans are not buying Dan Rather’s bullshit forged document story. GALLUP SHOWS BUSH BLOWOUT: *13 POINT LEAD OVER KERRY* http://makeashorterlink.com/?X4BB51D49

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> What’s new about these memos is that they state that Bush’s superior > officers were aware that Bush was performing unsatisfactorily, that > they were being pressured to let Bush slide through and that they were > expected to falsify Bush’s records. > Those who worked with the memos’ author, Killian, are saying that > while the memos may not be authentic, what they say is accurate. > Killian’s secretary is saying that she did type memos for Killian that > said the same things that these memos are saying.  Killian’s immediate > superior officer has said that Killian expressed the same thoughts to > him that are in the memos. > I think that’s the story.   Why were they being pressured?  Who was > pressuring them?  We know from the memos that Lt. Colonel Staudt was > pressuring them.  Was anybody pressuring Staudt?  What do we know, > what isn’t being disputed, of Bush’s stint in the TANG?: > Staudt, as Bush’s unit commander in 1968 staged a special ceremony for > the press so he could have his picture taken administering the oath > (after the official oath had been given by a Guard captain earlier.) > Staudt was excited about his VIP recruit, this direct appointment, > because at his staged ceremony, Bush’s father, the congressman, was > standing prominently in the background. > The 147th, Col. Staudt’s Texas unit, was infamous as a way out of > Vietnam combat for the politically well connected and celebrity draft > avoiders: Both of Sid Adger’s sons, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s > son, Republican Senator John Tower’s son, and at least seven players > for the Dallas Cowboys had been signed into the unit. > What made Bush’s unfair, favored Guard appointment doubly > reprehensible was his total lack of qualifications. Rapid selection > into the Guard was reserved for applicants with exceptional experience > or skills such as prior Air Force ROTC training, or special > engineering, medical, or aviation skills. > Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, had reviewed > the Guard’s records on Bush for a special exhibit on his service after > Bush became governor. Asked about Bush’s direct appointment without > special skills, Hail said, "I’ve never heard of that. Generally they > did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight > surgeons." > Charles Shoemaker, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air > National Guard and retired as a full colonel, said that direct > appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive > credentials. Asked about Bush, he said, "His name didn’t hurt, > obviously. But it was a commander’s decision in those days." > When Bush completed basic training, his commander approved him for a > "direct appointment." That made him a 2nd Lieutenant without having to > go through the usual (very difficult) Officer Candidate School. This > special procedure also got Bush into flight school, despite his very > low scores on aptitude tests: 25% on a pilot aptitude test (the > absolute lowest acceptable grade) and 50% for navigator aptitude. Bush > did score 95% on the easier and subjectively graded officer quality > test, but the class average is generally 88%.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&f… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In 1968, Bush’s father was a newly minted Congressman with a highly > coveted seat on the House Ways & Means Committee.  Very unusual for > such an inexperienced congressman to get on that committee.  Very > powerful. > Just as a reference point, at the time of those memos (1973), Bush had > left Congress and was named by Nixon to the Chairmanship of the RNC. > This was during the trial for the Watergate plumbers – Deep Throat had > just told Woodward that "lives were in danger." > Staudt retired around 1972 with the rank of Brigadier General.  That’s > a hefty promotion (2 grades) in such a short time.  It’s not unheard > of, but it is unusual.  It’s more likely to happen during wartime, on > the battlefield.  Google Staudt – what he was doing right after he > left the Guard raises an eyebrow: > "NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM > Walter B. Staudt is Executive Director of the Neighborhood Development > Program, which is In the process of completing a huge drainage project > for the western part of Beeville during the latter part of May this > year (1973). Forty-two city blocks of property are being drained with > storm sewers during heavy rains under this project, and the streets > will be paved after the sewer pipes have been laid. > The NDP also has started building and repairing houses in a plan to > eliminate shacks from the area. One new residence has been completed > and six others have been started at the time of this writing. > This is a Federal Agency, and the total expenditure on the drainage, > paving, and housing program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, > is $1.250,000." > This, and a whole lot more.  Read all about it at: > http://www.beeville.net/TheHistoricalStoryofBeeCountyTexas/Chapter16.htm > So, immediately after leaving the National Guard, Buck Staudt was > running a company that was receiving federal funds to develop an oil > and gas town in Texas. > Was Bucky Staudt laying a retirement nest egg by saving politicians’ > sons from having to go to Viet Nam, letting them hide out in his > "Champagne Unit," in exchange for federal funding contracts? > Why else would he be so excited to have Congressman Bush’s son in his > unit?  This wasn’t a rock star.  Did he stage redundant swearing in > ceremonies for all of his VIPs’ sons?  Staudt didn’t take in these > VIPs sons, save their asses from having to go to Viet Nam, for > nothing. > There’s more to this story than memos.

No, nothing more since the memos are fraudulent.

Response:

What’s new about these memos is that they state that Bush’s superior officers were aware that Bush was performing unsatisfactorily, that they were being pressured to let Bush slide through and that they were expected to falsify Bush’s records. Those who worked with the memos’ author, Killian, are saying that while the memos may not be authentic, what they say is accurate. Killian’s secretary is saying that she did type memos for Killian that said the same things that these memos are saying.  Killian’s immediate superior officer has said that Killian expressed the same thoughts to him that are in the memos. I think that’s the story.   Why were they being pressured?  Who was pressuring them?  We know from the memos that Lt. Colonel Staudt was pressuring them.  Was anybody pressuring Staudt?  What do we know, what isn’t being disputed, of Bush’s stint in the TANG?: Staudt, as Bush’s unit commander in 1968 staged a special ceremony for the press so he could have his picture taken administering the oath (after the official oath had been given by a Guard captain earlier.) Staudt was excited about his VIP recruit, this direct appointment, because at his staged ceremony, Bush’s father, the congressman, was standing prominently in the background. The 147th, Col. Staudt’s Texas unit, was infamous as a way out of Vietnam combat for the politically well connected and celebrity draft avoiders: Both of Sid Adger’s sons, Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s son, Republican Senator John Tower’s son, and at least seven players for the Dallas Cowboys had been signed into the unit. What made Bush’s unfair, favored Guard appointment doubly reprehensible was his total lack of qualifications. Rapid selection into the Guard was reserved for applicants with exceptional experience or skills such as prior Air Force ROTC training, or special engineering, medical, or aviation skills. Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, had reviewed the Guard’s records on Bush for a special exhibit on his service after Bush became governor. Asked about Bush’s direct appointment without special skills, Hail said, "I’ve never heard of that. Generally they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons." Charles Shoemaker, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air National Guard and retired as a full colonel, said that direct appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive credentials. Asked about Bush, he said, "His name didn’t hurt, obviously. But it was a commander’s decision in those days." When Bush completed basic training, his commander approved him for a "direct appointment." That made him a 2nd Lieutenant without having to go through the usual (very difficult) Officer Candidate School. This special procedure also got Bush into flight school, despite his very low scores on aptitude tests: 25% on a pilot aptitude test (the absolute lowest acceptable grade) and 50% for navigator aptitude. Bush did score 95% on the easier and subjectively graded officer quality test, but the class average is generally 88%. http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&f… In 1968, Bush’s father was a newly minted Congressman with a highly coveted seat on the House Ways & Means Committee.  Very unusual for such an inexperienced congressman to get on that committee.  Very powerful. Just as a reference point, at the time of those memos (1973), Bush had left Congress and was named by Nixon to the Chairmanship of the RNC. This was during the trial for the Watergate plumbers

Question:

[snip] > The going rate seems to > be about $300-500 for a ticket.  I’d bet that is a good basic model > for a ticket price.  Once enough airlines fail, I think you’ll see > alot of tickets going for that price. > Since the going rate for a rewards voucher is in the low 300’s that > would appear to be about the point where tickets would top out.  I doubt > that WN books many round trips anywhere near $500.  If they did the > stock would be doing better.  Even when they make money the stock drops.

   Took me 1 try to come up with a $556 itinerary.  You’re right, they probably sell a limited number of them.  But in essence, I would suspect that the rest of them are "loss leaders".  Once you put enough $500 seats on a plane, you can sell the rest of them at a lower price. WN is doing "yield management" just like everyone else.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [snip] >The answer is much more simple. >Memo: >To all airline employees.  It has been determined that your pay will >be reduced by 30% effective tommorrow.  You will, except for pilots, >likewise be subject to normal work rules (40 hours week, have a slip >from a doc if sick, etc) as other blue collar/pink collar workers. If >you can take you NON-TRANSFERABLE job skills elsewhere and make more, >don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. >Problem solved. >   I’m suspicious that the problem isn’t as simple as that.  It’s not > that lowering salaries wouldn’t help the airlines, but fuel costs > and the debt burden many of them carry may sink them regardless of > the cost of labor.  Planes are expensive and take a long time > to recoup the cost.  My personal prediction is that airlines will > continue to fail until there are few enough of them to allow them > to jack up prices.  If you sniff around WN you’ll note that they don’t > sell an awful lot of those $99 tickets.  The going rate seems to > be about $300-500 for a ticket.  I’d bet that is a good basic model > for a ticket price.  Once enough airlines fail, I think you’ll see > alot of tickets going for that price.

Since the going rate for a rewards voucher is in the low 300’s that would appear to be about the point where tickets would top out.  I doubt that WN books many round trips anywhere near $500.  If they did the stock would be doing better.  Even when they make money the stock drops.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [snip] >>The going rate seems to >>be about $300-500 for a ticket.  I’d bet that is a good basic model >>for a ticket price.  Once enough airlines fail, I think you’ll see >>alot of tickets going for that price. >Since the going rate for a rewards voucher is in the low 300’s that >would appear to be about the point where tickets would top out.  I doubt >that WN books many round trips anywhere near $500.  If they did the >stock would be doing better.  Even when they make money the stock drops. >    Took me 1 try to come up with a $556 itinerary.  You’re right, they > probably sell a limited number of them.  But in essence, I would > suspect that the rest of them are "loss leaders".  Once you put enough > $500 seats on a plane, you can sell the rest of them at a lower price. > WN is doing "yield management" just like everyone else.

I suppose they sell some.  I wonder why those folks don’t simply buy a reward coupon for 2/3 the price?  I suppose that it’s not completely refundable but certainly someone is going to fly somewhere they fly.

Response:

[snip] > The answer is much more simple. > Memo: > To all airline employees.  It has been determined that your pay will > be reduced by 30% effective tommorrow.  You will, except for pilots, > likewise be subject to normal work rules (40 hours week, have a slip > from a doc if sick, etc) as other blue collar/pink collar workers. If > you can take you NON-TRANSFERABLE job skills elsewhere and make more, > don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. > Problem solved.

  I’m suspicious that the problem isn’t as simple as that.  It’s not that lowering salaries wouldn’t help the airlines, but fuel costs and the debt burden many of them carry may sink them regardless of the cost of labor.  Planes are expensive and take a long time to recoup the cost.  My personal prediction is that airlines will continue to fail until there are few enough of them to allow them to jack up prices.  If you sniff around WN you’ll note that they don’t sell an awful lot of those $99 tickets.  The going rate seems to be about $300-500 for a ticket.  I’d bet that is a good basic model for a ticket price.  Once enough airlines fail, I think you’ll see alot of tickets going for that price.

Response:

> They have recently (since 9/11) gotten some subsidies from Congress, while some > of the largest companies are bankrupt or on the verge of it > Therefore, as King of the USA: > I would "virtually consolidate" United, Delta, U.S. Air and any other which is > collapsing financially > No airplane would be leaving a gate which is not (arbitrary percentage, subject > to revision) at least eighty-percent filled > Next problem?

How about " I would continue the ban on Cabotage, overseas majority ownership and operation of airlines in US." That should pretty much seal their fate… Dave

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > If I were king/ruler/dictator of the U.S. > The ailing segment of the airline industry would now be encouraged to > "collude." > By this I mean they must undertake certain mutually beneficial > "anti-competitive" cooperative measures. > They are manifestly not currently self-sustaining. > They have recently (since 9/11) gotten some subsidies from Congress, while some > of the largest companies are bankrupt or on the verge of it > Therefore, as King of the USA: > I would "virtually consolidate" United, Delta, U.S. Air and any other which is > collapsing financially > No airplane would be leaving a gate which is not (arbitrary percentage, subject > to revision) at least eighty-percent filled

The answer is much more simple. Memo: To all airline employees.  It has been determined that your pay will be reduced by 30% effective tommorrow.  You will, except for pilots, likewise be subject to normal work rules (40 hours week, have a slip from a doc if sick, etc) as other blue collar/pink collar workers. If you can take you NON-TRANSFERABLE job skills elsewhere and make more, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Problem solved.

Response:

> > > The next problem is that your solution wouldn’t work since it is > > LOW FARES not empty seats that is the problem.  CO recently posted > > an example of a completely full flight losing money as a result. >  Do you have an URL for this?  is it on their website? > He is exaggerating when he says "completely full", but his point is > accurate. Continental’s July 2004 load factor was 86.1%. That’s > significantly better than what it was in the "boom times".

Bob, you seem to be confusing two very different things. JBK’s claim refers to "an example of a completely full flight"; your 86.1% refers to July’s "systemwide mainline load factor" and tells us nothing whatsoever about any individual flight. I can quite believe that sufficiently close examination of CO’s data shows the existence of a specific flight which was completely full but the revenue for which did not cover the cost of the flight. When BA introduced their UK domestic "Shuttle" service their adverts asserted that they would put on a second aeroplane for a *single* customer who turned up on time.  Laying on a whole Trident for the revenue from a single standard fare is something of a loss-making operation, and I suspect that they occasionally made some rather generous offers to passengers who could afford to wait for the next scheduled aircraft.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > The lack of a competition watchdog allowed the big carriers to kill all > > but a > > few upstarts > You seem to be saying that deregulation was a bad thing because it was > anti-competitive, JF. It unfairly allowed the dinosaurs to ruin upstart > airlines. > No. Deregulation was meant to spur competition. But the legacy airlines > worked > together to prevent competition. It is the lack of action by the > government to > ensure that the legacy airlines didn’t use predatory/anti-competitive > tactics > that I mentioned. Not the lack of airline regulation.

Should national governments step in to save stores that can’t compete? What about Company X that makes one widget that can’t compete with Company Y that offers the same widget at a lower cost? Should the government regulate the widget industry so they both make money? I’m not sure what your problem is with deregulation, JF. Lots of airlines formed, most went by the wayside. Such is the way of life in the business world. > Now you seem to be saying that deregulation has allowed the smart, > upstart > airlines to ruin the dinosaurs. At least that’s how I read it. Am I > missing > something here? > Only a couple of small upstarts survived, many more were killed by the > legacy > airline’s predatory practices.

If airlines are not allowed to change their pricing, they are no longer unregulated. Letting prices rise and fall based on actual demand is what deregulation is all about. If deregulation is such a bad thing, how do you explain this? "Airline deregulation, now twenty years old, has been a success. Average airfares, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1978. Passenger traffic has more than doubled and competition has led to the innovation and efficiency that caused the continued decline in average real fares." http://www.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/at300/Documents/competition%20U… Granted, this is for the US. But I do believe that other countries that have deregulated their airlines have seen similar effects.

Response:

> > The lack of a competition watchdog allowed the big carriers to kill all > but a > few upstarts > You seem to be saying that deregulation was a bad thing because it was > anti-competitive, JF. It unfairly allowed the dinosaurs to ruin upstart > airlines.

No. Deregulation was meant to spur competition. But the legacy airlines worked together to prevent competition. It is the lack of action by the government to ensure that the legacy airlines didn’t use predatory/anti-competitive tactics that I mentioned. Not the lack of airline regulation. > Now you seem to be saying that deregulation has allowed the smart, upstart > airlines to ruin the dinosaurs. At least that’s how I read it. Am I missing > something here?

Only a couple of small upstarts survived, many more were killed by the legacy airline’s predatory practices.

Response:

>I think, in retrospect, that after 26 years, deregulation was a disaster. > It reduced service levels, by forcing the legacies into hub-and-spoke > systems, opened the industry to the low-fares which offer great deals IF > YOU > HAPPENED TO FLY WHERE THEY DO, but not otherwise. It brought with it > bus-ride service, including the "non-refundable" ticket.

"Airline deregulation, now twenty years old, has been a success. Average airfares, adjusted for inflation, have declined since 1978. Passenger traffic has more than doubled and competition has led to the innovation and efficiency that caused the continued decline in average real fares." http://www.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/at300/Documents/competition%20U… > If you think this is bad, what do you think AIRTRAK (a nationalized U.S. > airline) would be like?

Re-read what I wrote below and you’ll notice that I am firmly against nationalizing airlines. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > i think that i am for nationalizing and consolidating the current > > ailing > > airline industry, but doing as little damage as necesssary to employees > > and to > > passengers;whilet simultaneously also protecting the taxpayers > I’m not. We nationalized passenger railroads, putting them under the > AMTRAK > umbrella. We did so because ALL the passenger rail lines were going > under. > It was impossible for them to make money as privately-run companies, no > matter how well run they were. (I think AMTRAK is an important service > that > deserves better, but that’s a separate discussion.) > Today, as others have pointed out, numerous airlines can and do make > money. > If we nationalize the turds, we are penalizing those airlines that know > how > to run their businesses, and we would be penalizing them with OUR money. > It’s no mystery why the dinosaurs are dying off worldwide. Why prop them > up > for a year or two when they will still fail?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And I disagree strongly.  Deregulation has opened up the industry, > brought about a range of services, reduces the forced cross subsidies to > uneconomic locations and services and generally made things more > available. > Collusion resulted in the legacy carriers all having the same published > prices, matching each other’s prices and competing solely on frequency and > number of destinations. This created artificial services and frequencies, > with > a structure that required the milking of business customers to survive. > The lack of a competition watchdog allowed the big carriers to kill all > but a > few upstarts with  unethical practices and get away with it. They knew > that if > an efficient airline were to take roots,  it would cause havok on their > strategies that had nothing to do with efficiency.

You seem to be saying that deregulation was a bad thing because it was anti-competitive, JF. It unfairly allowed the dinosaurs to ruin upstart airlines. > The minute someone came with serious price competition that started to > steal > business customers, the legacy airlines’ empire crumbled. And Southwest > grew > safely to a point where it can not only survive the legacy carriers’ > attacks, > but also become a predator against those very carriers.

Now you seem to be saying that deregulation has allowed the smart, upstart airlines to ruin the dinosaurs. At least that’s how I read it. Am I missing something here, JF?

Response:

> And I disagree strongly.  Deregulation has opened up the industry, > brought about a range of services, reduces the forced cross subsidies to > uneconomic locations and services and generally made things more > available.

Collusion resulted in the legacy carriers all having the same published prices, matching each other’s prices and competing solely on frequency and number of destinations. This created artificial services and frequencies, with a structure that required the milking of business customers to survive. The lack of a competition watchdog allowed the big carriers to kill all but a few upstarts with  unethical practices and get away with it. They knew that if an efficient airline were to take roots,  it would cause havok on their strategies that had nothing to do with efficiency. The minute someone came with serious price competition that started to steal business customers, the legacy airlines’ empire crumbled. And Southwest grew safely to a point where it can not only survive the legacy carriers’ attacks, but also become a predator against those very carriers.

Response:

And I disagree strongly.  Deregulation has opened up the industry, brought about a range of services, reduces the forced cross subsidies to uneconomic locations and services and generally made things more available.  If you want to spend big bucks you can still travel on refundable tickets and high service levels.  If you want to fly somewhere out of the way why should others subsidize your service? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I think, in retrospect, that after 26 years, deregulation was a disaster. > It reduced service levels, by forcing the legacies into hub-and-spoke > systems, opened the industry to the low-fares which offer great deals IF YOU > HAPPENED TO FLY WHERE THEY DO, but not otherwise. It brought with it > bus-ride service, including the "non-refundable" ticket. > If you think this is bad, what do you think AIRTRAK (a nationalized U.S. > airline) would be like? >>i think that i am for nationalizing and consolidating the current ailing >>airline industry, but doing as little damage as necesssary to employees >>and to >>passengers;whilet simultaneously also protecting the taxpayers >I’m not. We nationalized passenger railroads, putting them under the > AMTRAK >umbrella. We did so because ALL the passenger rail lines were going under. >It was impossible for them to make money as privately-run companies, no >matter how well run they were. (I think AMTRAK is an important service > that >deserves better, but that’s a separate discussion.) >Today, as others have pointed out, numerous airlines can and do make > money. >If we nationalize the turds, we are penalizing those airlines that know > how >to run their businesses, and we would be penalizing them with OUR money. >It’s no mystery why the dinosaurs are dying off worldwide. Why prop them > up >for a year or two when they will still fail?

Response:

I think, in retrospect, that after 26 years, deregulation was a disaster. It reduced service levels, by forcing the legacies into hub-and-spoke systems, opened the industry to the low-fares which offer great deals IF YOU HAPPENED TO FLY WHERE THEY DO, but not otherwise. It brought with it bus-ride service, including the "non-refundable" ticket. If you think this is bad, what do you think AIRTRAK (a nationalized U.S. airline) would be like?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> i think that i am for nationalizing and consolidating the current ailing > airline industry, but doing as little damage as necesssary to employees > and to > passengers;whilet simultaneously also protecting the taxpayers > I’m not. We nationalized passenger railroads, putting them under the AMTRAK > umbrella. We did so because ALL the passenger rail lines were going under. > It was impossible for them to make money as privately-run companies, no > matter how well run they were. (I think AMTRAK is an important service that > deserves better, but that’s a separate discussion.) > Today, as others have pointed out, numerous airlines can and do make money. > If we nationalize the turds, we are penalizing those airlines that know how > to run their businesses, and we would be penalizing them with OUR money. > It’s no mystery why the dinosaurs are dying off worldwide. Why prop them up > for a year or two when they will still fail?

Response:

> i think that i am for nationalizing and consolidating the current ailing > airline industry, but doing as little damage as necesssary to employees > and to > passengers;whilet simultaneously also protecting the taxpayers

I’m not. We nationalized passenger railroads, putting them under the AMTRAK umbrella. We did so because ALL the passenger rail lines were going under. It was impossible for them to make money as privately-run companies, no matter how well run they were. (I think AMTRAK is an important service that deserves better, but that’s a separate discussion.) Today, as others have pointed out, numerous airlines can and do make money. If we nationalize the turds, we are penalizing those airlines that know how to run their businesses, and we would be penalizing them with OUR money. It’s no mystery why the dinosaurs are dying off worldwide. Why prop them up for a year or two when they will still fail?

Response:

>> The next problem is that your solution wouldn’t work since it is LOW > FARES not empty seats that is the problem.  CO recently posted an > example of a completely full flight losing money as a result. >  Do you have an URL for this?  is it on their website?

He is exaggerating when he says "completely full", but his point is accurate. Continental’s July 2004 load factor was 86.1%. That’s significantly better than what it was in the "boom times". Copied from their news releases: http://www.continental.com/company/investor/trafficnews.asp HOUSTON, Aug. 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL) today reported all-time records for its mainline systemwide, domestic, and international load factors for July. Systemwide mainline load factor was an all-time high of 86.1 percent, 1.6 points higher than its previous all-time record in July 2003. August 2000    HOUSTON, Aug. 1, 2000 — Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL and CAL.A) today reported the highest systemwide load factor in company history of 80.4 percent in July, 0.4 points above the previous record set in June 2000 and 2.6 points above July 1999. HOUSTON, Texas, August 2, 1999 — Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL and CAL.A) today reported a systemwide load factor of 77.8 percent in July, the highest July load factor in Continental’s history and the second highest load factor ever for the company.

Response:

Here’s what your king  thinks is essential/important: the pension plans/promises/obligations  of the troubled airlines are somewhat upheld, but there would also have to be an ex-post facto ceiling legalistically imposed of (perhaps) $200,000 in annual payments including providing for paid medical insurance as few layoffs of the current airline employees as possible, especially  in this time of economic recession–few/no new hires, however what’s not important (imho) the reported (outrageous) multi-million dollar salaries of airline executives whose companies are being subsidized by the federal govt and are now in or are on verge of bankruptcies–these guys oughtn’t be paid more than their own senior pilots what’s also not essential/important to uphold(imho) the pilot wages that are beyond a quarter million dollars annually what have i ignored? plenty, of course for instabce: the flight attendants’ pay should be equivalent to many nurses and many school teachers (approx $30,000–$50,000) i’m a pragmatist, and am trying not to be an uncandid dictator here i think that i am for nationalizing and consolidating the current ailing airline industry, but doing as little damage as necesssary to employees and to passengers;whilet simultaneously also protecting the taxpayers the current stockholders of the troubled companies would be bought-out/converted at  some bond-holding percentage, and all the bondholdings would be guaranteed and paid timely by the fed govt guarantee (since the hurting airline can’t guarantee) if skyblue, air tran, southwest etal want to stay private & stockholder held, then ok, this is america, and we don’t like total socialism/communism; but we are also for some socialistic stuff (social security, minimum wages, osha etal) when we politically decide such is necessary

Response:

> No airplane would be leaving a gate which is not (arbitrary percentage, subject > to revision) at least eighty-percent filled

So you dont see revenue as a foctor at all. They would simply give away seats for free to fill up to 80% Now, if they didnt let planes leave until they had 10,000 USD of revenue then maybe….

Response:

The next problem is that your solution wouldn’t work since it is LOW FARES not empty seats that is the problem.  CO recently posted an example of a completely full flight losing money as a result. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->(caveat lecter: this is a speculative, hypothetical note written by an amateur >gadfly –horsefly– whom enjoys posting  idiotic opinions about stuff he knows >not all that much about; but still likes to play lotto, bingo, twenty-five cent >roulette & kibbitz) >If I were king/ruler/dictator of the U.S. >The ailing segment of the airline industry would now be encouraged to >"collude." >By this I mean they must undertake certain mutually beneficial >"anti-competitive" cooperative measures. >They are manifestly not currently self-sustaining. >They have recently (since 9/11) gotten some subsidies from Congress, while some >of the largest companies are bankrupt or on the verge of it >Therefore, as King of the USA: >I would "virtually consolidate" United, Delta, U.S. Air and any other which is >collapsing financially >No airplane would be leaving a gate which is not (arbitrary percentage, subject >to revision) at least eighty-percent filled >It would be against my  edict  to have too damn many vacant seats >Thus, I am ad hoc virtually nationalizing-consolidating the failing companies >Let the accountants and logistics brains workout the details. >Next problem?

Response:

(caveat lecter: this is a speculative, hypothetical note written by an amateur gadfly –horsefly– whom enjoys posting  idiotic opinions about stuff he knows not all that much about; but still likes to play lotto, bingo, twenty-five cent roulette & kibbitz) If I were king/ruler/dictator of the U.S. The ailing segment of the airline industry would now be encouraged to "collude." By this I mean they must undertake certain mutually beneficial "anti-competitive" cooperative measures. They are manifestly not currently self-sustaining. They have recently (since 9/11) gotten some subsidies from Congress, while some of the largest companies are bankrupt or on the verge of it Therefore, as King of the USA: I would "virtually consolidate" United, Delta, U.S. Air and any other which is collapsing financially No airplane would be leaving a gate which is not (arbitrary percentage, subject to revision) at least eighty-percent filled It would be against my  edict  to have too damn many vacant seats Thus, I am ad hoc virtually nationalizing-consolidating the failing companies Let the accountants and logistics brains workout the details. Next problem?

Response:

> It would be against my edict to have too damn many vacant seats > There are no vacant seats any more.  Flights are leaving full, it’s > just that the people in the seats haven’t paid enough for their > tickets to fund these carriers. > I don’t think I’ve been on one flight in the USA that wasn’t almost > 100% full in the past two years.

That may be your personal experience, better stated as "I don’t see any vacant seats any more." Otherwise, your statement is horse puckey. Some flights are full…others aren’t even half full.  Depends upon the who, when, and where of the flight! bex

Response:

>> The next problem is that your solution wouldn’t work since it is LOW > FARES not empty seats that is the problem.  CO recently posted an > example of a completely full flight losing money as a result. >  Do you have an URL for this?  is it on their website?

No, this was an internal analysis given to their employees to show them what the problems are.

Response:

> It would be against my edict to have too damn many vacant seats

There are no vacant seats any more.  Flights are leaving full, it’s just that the people in the seats haven’t paid enough for their tickets to fund these carriers. I don’t think I’ve been on one flight in the USA that wasn’t almost 100% full in the past two years. Cheers, Geoff Glave Vancouver, Canada

Response:

> The next problem is that your solution wouldn’t work since it is LOW > FARES not empty seats that is the problem.  CO recently posted an > example of a completely full flight losing money as a result.

  Do you have an URL for this?  is it on their website?

Response:

> (caveat lecter: this is a speculative, hypothetical note written by an amateur > gadfly –horsefly– whom enjoys posting  idiotic opinions about stuff he knows > not all that much about; but still likes to play lotto, bingo, twenty-five cent > roulette & kibbitz) > If I were king/ruler/dictator of the U.S.

There is just one problem with your solution.  Some airlines are profitable. There is profit to be made in the industry, it’s just that some companies are so badly run they can’t figure out how to do it.  So essentially what you are suggesting is rewarding failure, which is a bad idea.  The airlines either have to adapt or they can go out of business and be replaced with one that can. Matt

Response:

Question:

A Mythic Reality By PAUL KRUGMAN The best book I’ve read about America after 9/11 isn’t about either America or 9/11. It’s "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an essay on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent. Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it explains why President Bush, despite policy failures at home and abroad, is ahead in the polls. War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn’t our ally is our enemy. This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power. One striking part of the book describes Argentina’s reaction to the 1982 Falklands war. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, the leader of the country’s military junta, cynically launched that war to distract the public from the failure of his economic policies. It worked: "The junta, which had been on the verge of collapse" just before the war, "instantly became the saviors of the country." The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic qualities to even the least deserving ruler. National adulation for the junta ended only after a humiliating military defeat. George W. Bush isn’t General Galtieri: America really was attacked on 9/11, and any president would have followed up with a counterstrike against the Taliban. Yet the Bush administration, like the Argentine junta, derived enormous political benefit from the impulse of a nation at war to rally around its leader. Another president might have refrained from exploiting that surge of support for partisan gain; Mr. Bush didn’t. And his administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology that makes such exploitation possible. Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends. What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush’s actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror – not to what he’s actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means – can he get a bump in the polls. Last week’s convention made it clear that Mr. Bush intends to use what’s left of his heroic image to win the election, and early polls suggest that the strategy may be working. What can John Kerry do? Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won’t work. Mr. Bush must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience." To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn’t an effective war leader – he only plays one on TV. This charge has the virtue of being true. It’s hard to find a nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic incompetence. If I were running the Kerry campaign, I’d remind people frequently about Mr. Bush’s flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end of major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage of Iraq dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in the original invasion. And I’d point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for his carrier landing – he even received underwater survival training in the White House pool – he didn’t prepare for things that actually mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell. Will it work? I don’t know. But to win, Mr. Kerry must try to puncture the myth that Mr. Bush’s handlers have so assiduously created.

Response:

I’ve been hearing a lot about that book – I’ll just have to pick it up. As I understand it, the challenge posed by the book is, "how do we find a moral equivalent of war?" That is, how can we tap into the same sense of unity and purpose for a less destructive cause?  How can we arrive at a place where people who are willing to die for peace or justice (such as Rachel Corrie in Gaza) are given as much consideration as those who are willing to die for victory in the military – instead of being treated as a joke by cynical war-hawks.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A Mythic Reality > By PAUL KRUGMAN > The best book I’ve read about America after 9/11 isn’t about either > America or 9/11. It’s "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an essay > on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent. > Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it explains why > President Bush, despite policy failures at home and abroad, is ahead > in the polls. > War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking > beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is > the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the > kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes > hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which > our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who > isn’t our ally is our enemy. > This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power. > One striking part of the book describes Argentina’s reaction to the > 1982 Falklands war. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, the leader of the > country’s military junta, cynically launched that war to distract the > public from the failure of his economic policies. It worked: "The > junta, which had been on the verge of collapse" just before the war, > "instantly became the saviors of the country." > The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public > desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic > qualities to even the least deserving ruler. National adulation for > the junta ended only after a humiliating military defeat. > George W. Bush isn’t General Galtieri: America really was attacked on > 9/11, and any president would have followed up with a counterstrike > against the Taliban. Yet the Bush administration, like the Argentine > junta, derived enormous political benefit from the impulse of a nation > at war to rally around its leader. > Another president might have refrained from exploiting that surge of > support for partisan gain; Mr. Bush didn’t. > And his administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology > that makes such exploitation possible. > Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on > terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war > against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends. > What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush’s > actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever > it takes to change the subject to the war on terror – not to what he’s > actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," > whatever that means – can he get a bump in the polls. > Last week’s convention made it clear that Mr. Bush intends to use > what’s left of his heroic image to win the election, and early polls > suggest that the strategy may be working. What can John Kerry do? > Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won’t work. Mr. Bush must > be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the > environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a > public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or > fact or truth can do to alter the experience." > To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of > voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn’t an effective war > leader – he only plays one on TV. > This charge has the virtue of being true. It’s hard to find a > nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush > administration’s foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion > disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic > incompetence. > If I were running the Kerry campaign, I’d remind people frequently > about Mr. Bush’s flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end of > major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage of Iraq > dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June > 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in > the original invasion. > And I’d point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for > his carrier landing – he even received underwater survival training in > the White House pool – he didn’t prepare for things that actually > mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell. > Will it work? I don’t know. But to win, Mr. Kerry must try to puncture > the myth that Mr. Bush’s handlers have so assiduously created.

Response: