A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB

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

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:

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. :-)

Go back and re-read the first churlish, snot-nosed complaint letter again.

As I mention elssewhere, my first take was some teenaged punk, not a 50's
something vet.

Al the colonel did was state the facts.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Neil Gould wrote:
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. :-)

Go back and re-read the first churlish, snot-nosed complaint letter again.

As I mention elssewhere, my first take was some teenaged punk, not a 50's
something vet.

Al the colonel did was state the facts.


I have no need to re-read what I have already read and after doing so
formed a firm opinion. You and I are simply in disagreement on this. The
entire discussion is moot as are most discussions like this one on Usenet.
Opinions on past actions by others are simply opinions. Mine will not
change by re-reading the complainant's letter. As I said, the
complainant, his attitude, and his letter are not relevant in my position.
If you believe the Col "simply stated the facts", that is your position.
I respect that and have no desire whatsoever to "push" my position on
the matter any further then my passing comment on the matter and least
of all to indicate someone else's position is wrong.
Such is Usenet :-)
Dudley Henriques

Recently, Clark posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in
news:5swki.21165$RX.2146 @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:

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?

Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I
won't type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.

The "two statements" imply that a military vet wouldn't understand the
significance of a formation flyby. Is that a reason to have bad thoughts
about my nature? If so, please do type it for my enlightenment.

Neil

On 7/10/2007 2:20:06 PM, Clark wrote:

I told you that I wouldn't type what I'm thinking. Why do you ask? Think
I'll change my mind?

Too proud to admit you made a mistake, eh?

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 7/10/2007 2:20:06 PM, Clark wrote:

I told you that I wouldn't type what I'm thinking. Why do you ask? Think
I'll change my mind?

Too proud to admit you made a mistake, eh?


Hey Peter!

Pot, Kettle...

"Clark" wrote in message
...
"Peter R." wrote in
:

On 7/10/2007 2:20:06 PM, Clark wrote:

I told you that I wouldn't type what I'm thinking. Why do you ask? Think
I'll change my mind?

Too proud to admit you made a mistake, eh?

Peter!

SIWTSDS.

"Clark" wrote in message
...
"Neil Gould" wrote in news:soKki.9546$Rw1.4923
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Recently, Clark posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in
news:5swki.21165$RX.2146 @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:

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?

Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I
won't type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.

The "two statements" imply that a military vet wouldn't understand the
significance of a formation flyby. Is that a reason to have bad thoughts
about my nature? If so, please do type it for my enlightenment.

Your nature is to presumption and malice. How 'bout that. One thing about
presumptuousness is that it often hides ignorance (not naiveté, in this
case), such as assuming that all vets understand flyovers. In the other
case, it shows a tremendous ignorance (or possibly just naiveté) regarding
Navy action in Vietnam.


I told you that I wouldn't type what I'm thinking. Why do you ask? Think
I'll change my mind?

Okay, let Neil keep making excuses.

Recently, Matt Barrow posted:

Your nature is to presumption and malice. How 'bout that. One thing
about presumptuousness is that it often hides ignorance (not naiveté,
in this case), such as assuming that all vets understand flyovers. In
the other case, it shows a tremendous ignorance (or possibly just
naiveté) regarding Navy action in Vietnam.

Talk about presumption and ignorance... why would you extract *anything*
regarding "Navy action in Vietnam" from the original question? It makes no
sense whatsoever.

Just for your edification, one of my closest friends served in the Navy in
Vietnam. And, who could forget the whole "Swiftboat" business, or the F4s
and other Navy aircraft that were carrier-based, not to mention the fleet
stationed there? It would be kind of hard *not* to know of Navy action in
Vietnam unless you were born since then and lived in an opaque bubble.

Face it, Matt, you went off on a bizarre tangent that only underscores
your misreading of the original question.

Neil