USS America

"Mike Kanze" wrote:


Please cite the source for your statement that "no money or manpower [was]
explicitly budgeted."

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/db_u.htm



Scott Peterson

--
Kids in the back seat cause accidents;
accidents in the back seat cause kids.

260/612

On 5/25/05 4:52 PM, in article , "Scott
Peterson" wrote:

"Mike Kanze" wrote:


Please cite the source for your statement that "no money or manpower [was]
explicitly budgeted."

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/db_u.htm



Scott Peterson

Weak.

Care to point to a specific line item?

--Woody

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:

Weak.

Care to point to a specific line item?

--Woody

No. I was being facetious, but you're asking me to prove a negative.
I said there wasn't one and now you're asking me to point to the line
item where it isn't.

See the fallacy.

The point is that there are entries for other ships involved in
projects but not this one.

Hope this explains it a bit better.



Scott Peterson

--
If at first you don't succeed,
skydiving is not for you.

177/612

On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:12:47 -0700, Scott Peterson
wrote:

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:

Weak.

Care to point to a specific line item?

--Woody

No. I was being facetious, but you're asking me to prove a negative.
I said there wasn't one and now you're asking me to point to the line
item where it isn't.

See the fallacy.

The point is that there are entries for other ships involved in
projects but not this one.

Hope this explains it a bit better.

If you are concerned about the EIS for this project why don't you go
and find it? They are filed with EPA, no? Contact them and get a
copy. That should put your concerns to rest.

Bill Kambic

On 5/27/05 12:12 AM, in article , "Scott
Peterson" wrote:

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:

Weak.

Care to point to a specific line item?

--Woody

No. I was being facetious, but you're asking me to prove a negative.
I said there wasn't one and now you're asking me to point to the line
item where it isn't.

See the fallacy.

The point is that there are entries for other ships involved in
projects but not this one.

Hope this explains it a bit better.



Scott Peterson

I understood your facetiousness. My "asking you to prove a negative" is
only slightly more absurd or practical than you asking folks to go
line-by-line to prove it.

You are imply either conspiracy or misuse of funds to hurry up and scuttle
USS AMERICA (CV-66). I don't see it that way.

Anybody that has spent any time in the Navy knows that that vast majority of
folks tend to do things by the book and by the numbers. That tendency gets
more pronounced the higher in rank you go.

There are exceptions, of course. I doubt based on the EPA oversight that
would be required that this is one of those exceptions.

--Woody

Scott,

Ditto Woody's comment, and for the other FY budget documents you didn't link
(2005, 2003, etc.) that might include this.

Frankly I had hoped that you would provide the affirmative reference your
statement implied ("no money or manpower [was] explicitly budgeted") than
something not stating anything at all. Come to think of it, so far you have
offered only opinion, and nothing authoritative that supports your line of
thought.

BTW, a budget is a plan and not necessarily what actually happens. For
openers, how much of any budget sails through the Congress unaltered?
Certainly the costs of our response to 9/11 cannot be found in the FY2002
budget.

--
Mike Kanze

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting
done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

- Sir William Francis Butler

"Scott Peterson" wrote in message
...
"Mike Kanze" wrote:


Please cite the source for your statement that "no money or manpower [was]
explicitly budgeted."

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/db_u.htm



Scott Peterson

--
Kids in the back seat cause accidents;
accidents in the back seat cause kids.

260/612