Why was the USAF.....................

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Christ! am I ever glad that you aren't in any position of power
Mr Marron.

Spoken like the true Canuck wussy that you are. Whattsa' matter Gordo,
jealous because when the doctors performed exploratory surgery in your
lower groin area looking for testicles they couldn't find any?

Marion, no need to stoop to tarver's level.

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: Mike Marron
Date: 1/8/2004 11:43 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Christ! am I ever glad that you aren't in any position of power
Mr Marron.

Spoken like the true Canuck wussy that you are. Whattsa' matter Gordo,
jealous because when the doctors performed exploratory surgery in your
lower groin area looking for testicles they couldn't find any?

Marion, no need to stoop to tarver's level.

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity. You
have. That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
You have.

As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

From: Mike Marron
Date: 1/8/2004 6:22 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
You have.

As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?


I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.

You are dismissed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
You have.

As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.

First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there
ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap.
Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults
in this thread alone:

1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret.
2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals.
3) Calling my Father and his friends fools.
4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world.
5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is.

I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan
B2431....

POT.



KETTLE.




BLACK.


(In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.)


Comprende?

From: Mike Marron

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
You have.

As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.

First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there
ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap.
Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults
in this thread alone:

1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret.

It was a typo which I have since corrected and I apologize for.

2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals.

I said they committed criminal acts which is a fact. You misread what I said.
It is against regs to take unauthorized people on launch trucks, to the
flightline etc. That makes it a criminal act.

3) Calling my Father and his friends fools.

I said entrusting their life support equipment to an unqualified person is a
foolish act. I stand by that. One foolish act does not make a person a fool.
Again you misread what I said. Once I got issued anything on which my life
depended I would not let any unauthorized person, especially a child, touch it.

4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world.

I said they are the second greatest BS artists when swapping stories. Again,
you got it wrong. Watch a group of fighter pilots trying to out lie each other
over beer and you will see what I meant. In any event if they ever told you
anything about the Air Force mission it is very obvious you have forgotten it.

5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is.

I stand by that. It is an opinion and was given as such.

I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan
B2431....

POT.



KETTLE.




BLACK.


(In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.)


Comprende?

None of what I said was a personal insult or attack against you. I am sorry you
don't see the difference. Please note you just called me a "santimonious
hypocrite." Please note I have never attacked you presonally or called you
names.

I have, however, said you seem to have no comprehension what the Air Force
mission is, how it conducts the mission and suggested you go review such. I
have also said your 20 years as a dependent (base brat) does not compare with
those of us who have actually served. I have also said you have made an
accusation that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 and you have yet to produce a
theory to explain why you said that. I have also said that your assertion that
the USAF was responsible for 9/11 was offensive to those who have served. None
of this was a personal insult or attack.

It appears to me you have no way to back up your accusations and you seem to
think calling me names and accusing me of things I haven't done is an
appropriate way for adults to debate.

Once again I say either give us a realistic theory as to why you accuse the
USAF of being responsible for 9/11 or apologize to all you have offended and
retract it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
You have.

As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

I sure do and name calling and insults ahve no place in a debate.

First, who said anything about having a "debate?" Second, there
ya' go again with the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou crap.
Now, let's quickly review some of YOUR namecalling and insults
in this thread alone:

1) Misspelling my last name while keeping yours a secret.

It was a typo which I have since corrected and I apologize for.

Gee Dan, I thought you "dismissed" me? Guess not, huh? In any
event, apologies accepted but I'm still wondering why you're so
secretive when it comes to revealing your FULL name? Whattsup
with THAT?? Afterall, you're retired and all so who cares?

2) Accusing my Father and his friends of being criminals.

I said they committed criminal acts which is a fact. You misread what I said.
It is against regs to take unauthorized people on launch trucks, to the
flightline etc. That makes it a criminal act.

Whatever. ISTR you accusing another poster of "confessing to a felony"
and now here you are accusing my father and his friends of comitting
"criminal acts." Now, I don't know what you job in the military was
specifically, but you're deluding yourself if you think that you've
impressed anyone here with your superficial knowledge of the law.

3) Calling my Father and his friends fools.

I said entrusting their life support equipment to an unqualified person is a
foolish act. I stand by that. One foolish act does not make a person a fool.
Again you misread what I said. Once I got issued anything on which my life
depended I would not let any unauthorized person, especially a child, touch it.

He did not entrust me or any other unqualified person to his life
support equipment. Thems YOUR words, not mine. There's a
HUGE difference between allowing your 9 or 10 year old son to simply
ride along in the launch truck along with all your equipment as
opposed to "entrusting your life support equipment to an unqualified
person." Now, I realize you're retired and all, but you really do need
to get a life. I mean GET A LIFE!!

4) Calling fighter pilots the second biggest BS artists in the world.

I said they are the second greatest BS artists when swapping stories. Again,
you got it wrong. Watch a group of fighter pilots trying to out lie each other
over beer and you will see what I meant. In any event if they ever told you
anything about the Air Force mission it is very obvious you have forgotten it.

See above. You just love to argue for the sake of arguing, huh?

5) Accusing me of having no idea what the USAF's job is.

I stand by that. It is an opinion and was given as such.

Exactly. Just like it is my opinion that the USAF is partly to blame
for not preventing the WTC/Pentagon terrorist attacks. I'm not the
only person who shares that opinion in this country, BTW.

I'll say it slow, one more time, so even YOU can understand, Mr. Dan
B2431....

POT.



KETTLE.




BLACK.


(In other words, glass houses, stones, that kind of thing.)


Comprende?

None of what I said was a personal insult or attack against you.

Riiiiight.

I am sorry you don't see the difference.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Please note you just called me a "santimonious hypocrite." Please note
I have never attacked you presonally or called you names.

You can attempt to spin it anyway you wish, but accusing my Dad of
"committing criminal and/or foolish acts" and me of "having no idea
what the USAF's job is" constitutes personal attacks in my book.

I have, however, said you seem to have no comprehension what the Air Force
mission is, how it conducts the mission and suggested you go review such. I
have also said your 20 years as a dependent (base brat) does not compare with
those of us who have actually served. I have also said you have made an
accusation that the USAF was responsible for 9/11 and you have yet to produce a
theory to explain why you said that. I have also said that your assertion that
the USAF was responsible for 9/11 was offensive to those who have served. None
of this was a personal insult or attack.

And you seem to have no comprehension what it's like to stand on
the firing line for more than 12, long, agonizing months just waiting
and wondering if your Dad has been shot down or killed in some
steaming ******** SEA jungle....or taken prisoner....or WTF??!!

It appears to me you have no way to back up your accusations and you seem to
think calling me names and accusing me of things I haven't done is an
appropriate way for adults to debate.

First, I'm not obligated to defend my opinions to YOU. Second, if you
haven't noticed, I'm not interesting in having any "debate" with YOU.
Anyone like YOU whose willing to sit and argue with someone like
TARVER (of all people!) on the internet month after month after month
is obviously someone who simply loves to argue for the sake of
arguing. Ya' just can't win with guys like YOU, so thanks but no
thanks! Feel free to go back to swapping drivel over "pitot tubes"
and such with good ol' Tarv.

Once again I say either give us a realistic theory as to why you accuse the
USAF of being responsible for 9/11 or apologize to all you have offended and
retract it.

Again, thanks but no thanks. (Please see my response to Dweezil
below...)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Retired and perhaps a bit too much free time on your hands?

***

After spending the first 20 years of my life on ADC bases I grew
accustomed to the sound of afterburners blasting off all day
and night and the even louder concussions of sonic booms.
As a young kid, I rode in those dark blue Air Force panel trucks on
the flightline with Dad and his RO's carrying their chutes, kneeboards
and helmet bags. I sat in the tower and listened to his radio
conversations and watched until my neck was sore as my ol' man
roared down the runway at Kingsley Field and pulled straight
up 'till he was clean out of sight. Hell, I've even drank beer with
him and his pilot buds and a few of the wise old maintenance types
whom he fondly referred to as "Zebras." In other words, I have a
pretty damn good idea of what the USAF's job is and to imply
otherwise is offensive not only to me, but also the USAF. The purpose
of this NG is to discuss all-things-military aviation, and that is all
I am attempting to do. Anyone who knows me, or either of my two
older brothers (not to mention my younger sister and my
Mother, of course!) knows just how much we honor and respect
the military and especially the USAF. If my remarks concerning
9/11 happen to offend you, I sincerely apologize. However, I remain
convinced that the USAF was at least partly to blame for 9/11. Not
unlike pre-Dec 7, 1941, the pre-Sept. 11, 2001 USAF (USAAF in
'41) had become complacent and both the Japs AND those Islamic
****s ($1 to Juvat) simply caught us all napping on the job, so
to speak. Like it or not, the horrific results of both surprise
attacks at Pearl Harbor and NYC/Washington DC speak for
themselves. But that's just my opinion, you're entitled to yours, of
course. Nice day!

***

"Mike Marron" wrote

Comprende?

20+ posts in this thread, and still no information as to why you think the
USAF 'dropped the ball on 9/11 BIG TIME!"

Pete

From: "Pete"
Date: 1/8/2004 9:32 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Mike Marron" wrote

Comprende?

20+ posts in this thread, and still no information as to why you think the
USAF 'dropped the ball on 9/11 BIG TIME!"

Pete

You won't get one from him. He's convinced he doesn't have to back it up and
now he's convinced I am attacking him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:22:09 GMT, Mike Marron wrote:

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Coming from someone whose stupidly wasted more bandwidth than
all of us combined swapping drivel with Tarver over such inane
things as "pitot tubes" and such, THAT was a truly mind boggling
retort! And as far as your buddy Beaman is concerned, well, he's a
self-admitted Tarver apologist. Pot Kettle Black.

Marion, please pay attention. Yes I did argue ad nauseum with tarver but I
never stooped to his level of name calling,personal attacks and vulgarity.
You have.

As if. As if being a santimonious hypocrite somehow lets you off the
hook. And I s'pose politely using a clinical term for "cajones" is a
"crime" or a "sin" in your book as well?

That is the tactic of one who is either losing an argument or has no
argument to begin with.

I stand by everything I wrote, Big Dan. And you do know the difference
between having an argument and expressing an opinion, correct?

Your opinion in this matter is so juvenile and patently wrong
that it does not rise to the level of intelligent discourse. Please
go away.

Al Minyard