Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Spin Doctor Guy Alcala has again left out a number of inconvenient
facts -- thirty-three inconvenient facts, in this case. Between May
1st and June 13th, 1982, Argentine C-130 Hercules transports
operated
33 flights into the airfield at Port Stanley, carrying 434 tons of
cargo and 514 personnel. They also managed to evacuate 264 wounded.
Evidently, the crater was not quite the detriment you and the RAF
would like us to believe.

Even, you really need to take off your dark goggles occasionally. You
might then have less trouble reading the portion of my post
immediately preceding the part which you quoted out of context, to
wit:

"During the campaign the runway had been cratered by the Vulcan bomber
and Harrier raids, and had suffered over 1,000 'scabs' or shallow
scuffs in its surface. The Argentinians had temporarily back-filled
the five large craters [Guy: 1 deep one by Vulcan, the other four
shallower, by retard bombs dropped by SHAR/GR.3], enabling them to
continue to fly in C-130 Hercules transports right up to the end.
"By properly repairing three craters and dealing with about 500
'scabs', No. 1 Troop of 59 Commando Squadron Royal Engineers had the
northern half of the runway ready to accept the first British Hercules
on 24 June [Guy: Obviously, risks worth taking in landing
They had also arranged rings of earth on the runway
to show up as craters on British air reconnaissance photos.


So what? I said you did not mention the 33 flights by the C-130s. You
mentioned one specific flight in which a Hercules (supposedly) "almost
crashed".

I don't know how much plainer I can make it.


Maybe you and Alistair Gunn should pass around a collection plate
to
have the crater enshrined.

Why would we need to do so? The only reason either of us mentioned it
was because you were referencing an anecdotal quote provided by Moro;
I merely provided the facts. How you get from there to our supposed
worship of the crater, I have no idea


Your longwinded response and rather astonishing selectiveness towards
"facts" suggests otherwise. : )