"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
::And your source for saying that a M3M-equipped Lynx can't engage a light
::aircraft or UAV is...?
:
:Gee, where did I say that, Paul? Making up yet more lies?
:
:So, we are that a helicopter can effectively engage a low slow flier,
:correct?
For some definition of "effectively", "low" and "slow".
I find it amusing how you want to change the words back and forth when
you try your two-value switch games, Paul.
::Be detailed and specific, please, you're arguing against current
::doctrine.
:
:Follow along with me now. We're talking about NAVIES. You know.
:Folks who have something besides destroyers.
:
:Funny, I could have sworn that a couple of Her Majesty's large grey war
:canoes were aircraft carriers. In fact, Illustrious is out on OP AQUILA
:at the moment with a deckful of Harriers.
:
:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5330
We don't call ships that small that carry a bare handful of aircraft
"aircraft carriers", Paul.
:Poor Fred - so much certainty, so few facts...
Poor Paul - they USED to have a real navy...
::I did. You say that helicopters can't intercept slow low-flying air
::contacts and have no capability against them.
:
:Ok, now try reading the words and not lying about what they say.
:
:So in fact you agree that helicopters *can* intercept slow low fliers
:and *do* have capability against them?
Of course. So can a swimmer with a handgun.
:What were you complaining about, then?
Lately? You lying, as usual.
:I said "we don't use them as interceptors", which means something
:somewhat different. The noun 'interceptor' means just a bit more than
:"something that is used to intercept" when talking about aircraft.
:
:Really, Fred? A quick perusal of Joint Publication 1-02 (Department of
efense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) gives us
:"interceptor" as "A manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or
:engagement of airborne objects."
:
:Sounds like it fits the bill.
Now look around some more and you'll find other definitions where it
doesn't fit the bill.
Quite handy to pick and choose, Paul. Good luck looking up 'aircraft'
in there.
::I say they can, and they do. The USN agrees enough that it's sending a
::detachment to participate in that phase of NEPTUNE WARRIOR 063.
::
::I fear one of us must be mistaken, but I doubt it's me - I know who's
::writing the exercise orders, and I doubt you do.
:
:I fear one of us is a congenital liar. It's most assuredly you.
:
:Yes, Fred, if you scream "liar" loud enough then you might eventually
:convince yourself.
Poor Paul. This is really all you can do, isn't it?
::"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out
::there." writes Fred.
::
::So, a helicopter with a .50" door gun can only watch the UAV, according
::to Fred.
::
::Not a _universally_ shared opinion, but there you go.
:
:So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the
:Empire has sunk when that's true.
:
:If you send a helicopter to investigate a low slow flyer, is it not "a
:manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or engagement of
:airborne objects"? According to the US DoD, that's an 'interceptor', but
:Fred doesn't believe them.
No, according to one document (which rather neglects to define
'aircraft', so you can see how complete THAT is) it is. Now break out
your handy dandy desktop dictionary and look up 'interceptor', Paul.
Interceptors come with 'F' and 'Y' designators. Those aren't
helicopters.
::"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out
::there." writes Fred. Where, in that statement, is any acceptance of a
::capability against the slow low flyer?
::
::Is Fred grossly dishonest, or just terribly confused?
:
:I'll simply note that Paul has to go find things out of context to
:insert rather than simply leaving the original quotes and context in.
:
:Fred can't cope with his own words, it seems.
While Paul 'copes' too well, switching words back and forth in a 'two
value' game just to pick a fight.
:Is Paul a liar, or ... well, that seems to be the only possibility,
:doesn't it?
:
:Or, perhaps, Paul is right and Fred has to keep screaming "liar!"
:because he's been caught - yet again - making grossly incorrect
:statements.
The two aren't even connected, Paul. Go count the number of times
you've claimed I said something I never said. Lies, Paul. It's what
you do.
Frankly, it's pretty sad that all people like you and Tiglet can do to
validate your own existence is to go about picking these kinds of
fights.
::So, is the USN sending helicopters to exercise against "slow low fliers"
:
roof that it's impossible?
::
::I'm curious. You insist it can't be done and it's not possible and the
::aircraft have no capability... and yet on every detail you turn out to
::be wrong.
:
:Yes, you ARE curious. Most curious is why you are so driven to
:misconstrue and lie. Is your life THAT dull again these days, Paul?
:
:Amusing evasion, Fred. How does the USN HELDET participation in NW063's
:"slow low-flyer" phase prove me a liar?
Where did I ever "insist it can't be done and it's not possible and
the aircraft have no capability", Paul.
All I did was ask a few simple questions. All you did was lie about
what I said.
::Ain't teamwork great? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the
::US is as blinkered, arrogant, ignorant and dishonest as Fred?
:
:Isn't it useful that not everyone in the UK is the congenital liar
:that Paul is?
:
:When Fred calls you a liar, rejoice - it means he's really out on his
:facts and knows it.
No, it means you are a liar who is making up things and then treating
them as reality.
Lithium, Paul ... get some.
::Remember the origin of the discussion, Fred - "helicopters don't
::intercept air targets".
:
:Put it back in context again, Paul. What you claim as "the origin of
:the discussion" isn't. Of course, why would anyone be surprised that
:you'd lie about that?
:
:Answer the question, Fred - can helicopters intercept slow low-flyers or
:not?
:
:Oh, wait, you did. Have you changed your mind?
No, Paul. I haven't changed my mind and I'm pretty unlikely to do so
in the face of a pathetic little ****** like you.
I'd ask you what YOU think my answer is, but I'm sure you'll get it
wrong.
::Like, shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven aircraft? Those were the
::targets for the TuF.
:
:So your logic runs that since there was once a gun intended for this
:that all guns from then on are?
:
:No, Fred - what were you saying about liars?
So what is your point in dredging up the factoid that there have been
machine guns intended for "shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven
aircraft", Paul?
:Isn't it a terrible thing
:to make up false opinions and attribute them to someone?
Yes, it is. I wish you would stop.
:And is not "tu
:quoque" a despicable loser's tactic?
Still looking in that mirror, Paul?
:Gee, Britain must be building all those tanks just to bust trench
:lines then.
:
:No - times changed.
Gee, exactly my point, Paul.
:The .50" stopped being a useful weapon against
:front-line combat aircraft (and tanks) a long time ago - but it remains
:effective against low slow fliers (which, oddly enough, are the targets
:under discussion here) among many other targets: hence its widespread
:retention and use.
For some definition of 'effective' and depending on which particular
..50 you're talking about.
:Some of us understand these complicated things. Other people, evidently,
:don't...
Some of you apparently understand quite poorly, then, since you find
it convenient to treat all .50 caliber guns as if they are the same.
Of course, they aren't, but then you've never been one to let the
truth get in your way, have you, Paul?
::The UAVs of concern are small 100kt prop jobs.
::
::Poor Fred, so fixated on being right, so determined that he can never be
::wrong...
:
:Paul, this is the sort of remark people have been making for 20 years
:in an effort to 'win' Usenet fights they pick.
:
:And how do I "win a fight" with you, Fred?
Nice of you to admit that this is your goal, Paul.
:You'll never admit to being
:wrong, you'll lie and evade and insult until Hell freezes over rather
:than ever concede the least error.
Another lie, Paul. I admit error all the time. This is just another
Stupid Usenet Trick that has been around for decades, used by folks
who must 'win' and can't do it any other way. It's part and parcel
with the "Don't get mad" (because if the other person is responding
from emotion you must be the 'logical' one), calling someone "troll",
etc.
Pathetic, Paul.
:It's amusing to steer you through your predictable pattern of behaviour,
:that's all.
Yes, this sort of sad little exercise is all you have to prove your
importance to yourself, isn't it, Paul?
::You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts.
:
:I made no such claim. You're lying again.
:
:"So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the
:Empire has sunk when that's true." writes Fred.
Note that saying a helicopter isn't an 'interceptor' isn't the same
thing as saying it cannot 'intercept' things, regardless of whatever
definitions Paul wants to pick and choose.
A swimmer with a handgun can "intercept slow low flying air contacts",
too, for some definition of 'intercept'.
:Perhaps this is actually meant to be an acceptance of Fred's error,
:wrapped in one of his petty Anglophobic rants?
"Anglophobic"? You lot have even learned the whole 'culture of the
victim' thing, haven't you? Poor, discriminated against little Paul!
I'm not 'Anglophobic', Paul. I just don't care for liars much.
:It doesn't exactly scream
:"yes, I agree, helicopters *can* intercept low slow fliers". But perhaps
:there's context and meaning hidden there that is too subtle for non-Fred
:life forms to comprehend.
:
:Shall we try a straight question? Earlier, I asked Fred "So, Fred, do
:naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category or not?"
:
:Fred replies, "No, they do not."
:
:Now, Fred denies his denial. Is Fred dishonest or just confused?
Note the cute word changes. Can they? Sure. Do they? Not in a real
navy. That's done by fast movers, because you want the intercept
point to be further away and they can get there quicker.
::You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow
::low-flying air contacts.
:
:I made no such claim. You're lying again.
:
:Fred goes on to tell us "'Intercept' implies they do something other
:than
:watch once they get out there."
:
Actually, to "intercept" is defined as identification and / or
:engagement,
If one is selective about ones choice of definitions.
:but let's not trouble Fred with more facts than his closed
:little mind can handle)
:
:So to Fred, claiming that helicopters have no ability to engage the
:target, means they carry effective weapons. Strange logic, but that's
:Fred for you.
And Paul continues to lie. Read carefully, Paul.
YOU said I claimed something I never claimed. Now YOU want to
construct further lies around your original.
How very, well, PAUL of you.
::I pointed out that they can and they do.
:
:Are you starting to see a pattern here, Paul?
:
:Certainly am - every time you call me a liar, it's because I've caught
:you in an error, and rather than just shrug and say "live and learn" you
:have to scream "liar!".
It figures. Paul has lied so much he can't even sort out fact from
fiction any more.
::And so it goes... every time Fred makes a claim that turns out to be
::bold, sweeping and wrong, his reaction is to escalate the pitch of his
::"liar!" whine. He never learns, he never reconsiders, he can only accuse
::anyone who disagrees with him of lying.
:
:Pathetic lowest form of Usenet life, Paul.
:
:Well, that is *such* a factual riposte that I'm just floored, Fred.
Let's include the rest of that - the bits cut from your cute selective
editing, shall we, Paul?
"You and Tiglet and a handful of others who can only prove your
(self)importance by going about picking fights, distorting and lying
as required."
"I don't mind. Seeing Usenet these days is sad; like living in a
neighborhood that used to be nice but that has gone to seed and been
taken over by hookers and crackheads."
Yep - pathetic lowest form of Usenet life.
::Which would you prefer, Fred? You love to scream "liar", how do you want
::your chance to prove it?
:
:Already proven. See above. You've repeatedly claimed I've said
:things I never said based on your own pathetic misinterpretations.
:
:Sorry, Fred, but you're condemned from your own mouth.
Sorry, Paul, but cute editing tricks and confusing "can" with "do"
hardly represents anything from MY mouth. I'll leave that sort of
distortion to you congenital liars.
:Unless "No, they do not" means "yes" to you, that is...
And so we see Paul confusing the words "can they" with "do they" to
construct his little game this time around.
Poor Paul. This sort of thing is all he has....
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates