![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Dudley Henriques posted: Neil Gould wrote: Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) posted: According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005. http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp There was another letter that continued this topic. To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July: [...] I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known. [...] I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran. Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements? Neil Not at all. The first statement obviously is a referral to THIS SPECIFIC flyby and indicates that the complainant was unaware that the flyby involved a ceremony. The second statement is a simple comment that indicates the complainant was a veteran and had he known it was a cerimonial flyby would NOT have written his letter. I see no "sinister" indications here. I'm assuming you are referring to a veteran having no idea what the significence of the flyby would be and therefore suspect? I don't see that at all. Just to be clear, I see no "sinister" indications, either. I wondered about anyone, especially a vet, not at least thinking that a low-level formation flyby might be part of a ceremony. It's the first thing that would have occurred to me, but perhaps I've just seen too many of them? Also, it took some time to reflect on the incident in order to write the letter to the newspaper, and that may have triggered a recollection, too. So, I asked the question, and accept from the responses of others that it not would be all that unusual. BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity, although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that possibility than he was. Neil I understand what you are saying. It would have occured to me as well. The interesting thing about the position I have taken on this is that the complainant is actually irrelevant in the equation. His letter for my position is nothing more or less than a useful tool that might have been used by the Col to a better advantage. It was a gambit declined....a stalemate achieved where checkmate was obvious. :-) Dudley Henriques |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wake for RAR | Stuart & Kathryn Fields | Rotorcraft | 24 | April 16th 07 04:40 AM |
Wake turbulence | Glen in Orlando | Aviation Photos | 2 | December 2nd 06 03:39 PM |
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380 | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 23 | November 29th 05 04:14 AM |
caution - wake turbulence | John Harlow | Piloting | 1 | June 4th 04 04:40 PM |
Wake turbulence avoidance and ATC | Peter R. | Piloting | 24 | December 20th 03 11:40 AM |