A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB

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

On Jul 13, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

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 :-)

(just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?
;-) ;-)

"Bob Crawford" wrote in message
(just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?
;-) ;-)


BOHICA!!!

Bob Crawford wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

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 :-)

(just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?
;-) ;-)




The old "double entendre" works again :-))) Such is Usenet :-)))
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Bob Crawford wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

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 :-)

(just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?
;-) ;-)




The old "double entendre" works again :-))) Such is Usenet :-)))
Dudley Henriques

Well, you're wrong: Usenet is not a "such', it's a "whom"! :~@