Clark wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
::
:: Clark wrote:
::
:::On 09 Feb 2008, you wrote in rec.aviation.military.naval:
:::
::: In message , Clark
::: writes
:::Show me a VLS system other than submarine that isn't used with
:::Aegis.
:::
::: GWS26 Sea Wolf. PAAMS (Sylver launchers plus ASTER missiles). SA-N-6 and
::: SA-N-9, for the Russians. At least one Chinese system whose
::: designation I can't recall offhand. Barak, for Israeli kit.
::: Vertically Launched Sea Sparrow.
:::
::: There may be more but that's a starting point. Plenty of users like
::: vertical launch without ever getting near AEGIS.
:::
:::
:::In other words, for the point of this exchange there aren't any. We
:::were typing about Standard missiles.
:::
::
:: No, we weren't. You insisted that "AEGIS" was identically "VLS".
::
::Read it again dimwit. I noted that Aegis and vls went together and they
::do.
::
:
: Read it again, dumbass. You insisted that "AEGIS" and "VLS" meant the
: same thing. They don't. They also don't always go together. There
: have been AEGIS ships without VLS and VLS ships without AEGIS.
:
::
::
:: You're wrong. It's not.
::
::Show me an Aegis that doesn't have VLS.
::
:: That's not even true for Standard-capable launchers (Mk 41 VLS), since
:: the new LPDs will have Mk 41 launchers and no AEGIS system. Some of
:: the Spruance class (all those currently left in commission) have Mk 41
:: VLS and no AEGIS system.
::
::There are no Sprucans left in commission. Last one was decommissioned in
::05.
::
:
: So what? You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS. You then
: revised to there being no VLS firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice
: versa).
:
:And you tried to use Sprucans as an example of VLS w/o Aegis. So sorry that
:they don't exist.
:
Except they do exist. You're just now trying to further revise your
original remark to achieve some form of correctness. So far:
1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.
2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
without AEGIS (and vice versa).
3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
And you're still wrong.
:
:
: You're still wrong. There have been AEGIS ships without VLS and there
: have been VLS ships, firing both Standard and other missiles, without
: AEGIS.
:
:That wasn't what I stated. Go back and read it again. Get someone to help
:you understand.
:
That was precisely what you stated and your ill-mannered behaviour at
this point doesn't erase it. Let us once again enumerate the
evolution of your claim:
1) You claimed there was no VLS without AEGIS and vice versa, saying
that saying AEGIS when you meant VLS was the same statement.
2) You then revised to there being no VLS capable of firing Standard
without AEGIS (and vice versa).
3) You then revised to there being no *US* VLS capable of firing
Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
4) You're now at there being no *US* VLS on ships currently in
commission capable of firing Standard without AEGIS (and vice versa).
And you're still wrong.
:
:
::
:: Now, would you like to wriggle some more, or shall you just admit you
:: didn't know what you were talking about and move on?
::
::Get real. You are the arrogant clueless one here. You really need a
::reality check...and some parental guidance.
::
:
: Both my parents are dead, you stupid ****e. My mother just died a few
: weeks ago.
:
: And you're not only ignorant and stupid, you're apparently also
: ill-mannered and insensitive.
:
:And I'm insensitive because of....what? Now, if you had previously
ublished that your mother had passed on and it was known to all then
erhaps I would be insensitive.
:
Uh, I don't know how to break it to you, dumbass, but that's precisely
what happened. Ask around.
As we've seen from your other expositions in ignorance, YOU not
knowing is not the same as "not known to all".
:
:Your bull**** on the other hand is highly
:suspect because you've already made other *documented* false statements
see Sprucans).
:
And just what did I say that was false? Have you now moved to "the
Spruance class never existed" in your litany of idiocy?
:
:In other words, your mother didn't just pass and you are
:trying for the sympathy play. Good luck with that.
:
Why would anyone want 'sympathy' from a gormless twit like you? And
do you seriously think anyone would bother to tell such a lie just to
'win' a point? Unlikely. After all, most people aren't like you.
:
:
: Sort of a Renaissance ****head.
:
:Well, the ****head part describes you perfectly. Try real hard to deal with
:the world as it exists rather than the one you want to spin. Good luck!
:
Yeah. Now that's you've achieved maximal stupidity, you should
probably run away.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson