This week's AW&ST: apparently THAAD will have some ABM (as in anti- *ICBM*) capability.

No, I just find playing a simple "battle of links", with no abstract, a bit
tedious and basically lazy on the part of the naked-link poster.


Why the hell would I want to retype the thing when all you have to do
is click once and get the whole thing? And a quick glance at the link
and context should tell you what the thing is going to be about
anyway. If you want to talk laziness "too hard to click on a link"
takes the cake.





Now look
here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in this
thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort towards
civility that I have?


I was. The part that gets irritating is when you go off on some
tangent simply because you didn't bother to read what was written in
the first place. Everybody goofs up sometimes so I cut you some slack
when you went off on the anti-ICBM tangent. Then you turn right
around and go off on the "three or four times the range" tangent and I
have to go and RE-iterrate what I've already written simply because
you didn't take the time to catch it the first time around. Get's old
after a while.





Just on this thread there have been
numerous times in which you have missed what has been written or saw a
big paragraph so didn't read it at all. And it shows. My point in
providing those links (if you've read this far) is to enlighten you on
the BPI issue. Where's the harm in going to the link and reading? It
can only help you have a better undertanding of a subject you
apparently take an interest in.

OK, enough is enough. You got an apology, so what the hell else you want is
beyond me.

I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
tangent. Is that too much to ask?





I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer (and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off your
high horse, OK?

Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
a link (that's WHY they provided a link). Most people read faster
than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...


snip


Now look
here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in
this
thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort
towards
civility that I have?


I was. The part that gets irritating is when you go off on some
tangent simply because you didn't bother to read what was written in
the first place. Everybody goofs up sometimes so I cut you some slack
when you went off on the anti-ICBM tangent.

Considering you *started* this thread with the *ICBM * bit (look at the
freakin' subject line you came up with, for gosh sakes), it is not that hard
to imagine someone thinking along those lines.

Then you turn right
around and go off on the "three or four times the range" tangent and I
have to go and RE-iterrate what I've already written simply because
you didn't take the time to catch it the first time around. Get's old
after a while.

Look, you got an apology. be gracious about it, for gosh sakes.

snip

I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
tangent. Is that too much to ask?

Yes. It is when you don't have the common courtesy of telling a guy what the
cite says in some form or other. I have had folks give blind links that
resulted in thirty-page pdf documents. If you are too lazy to wade through
the site and summarize what is there, why should you expect others to do it
for you?


I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer
(and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off
your
high horse, OK?

Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
a link (that's WHY they provided a link).

That is you, this is me.

Most people read faster
than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.

Not too good, just don't enjoy the usual
search-through-the-weeds-to-try-and-figure-out-what-the-guy-means when a
blind link is provided. I am truly sorry you don't like that, but I am
doubtful I'll lose any sleep over it.

Brooks

I'd be happy if you'd just read the post before haring off on some
tangent. Is that too much to ask?

Yes. It is when you don't have the common courtesy of telling a guy what the
cite says in some form or other.


I'm not talking about reading the link. I'm talking about reading
what I wrote. If you're going to comment on it I'd think you'd at
least want to know what it is you're commenting on.



I have had folks give blind links that
resulted in thirty-page pdf documents. If you are too lazy to wade through
the site and summarize what is there, why should you expect others to do it
for you?


I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer
(and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off
your
high horse, OK?

Not on a high horse. I wouldn't expect anybody to write a synopsis of
a link (that's WHY they provided a link).

That is you, this is me.

Most people read faster
than they type and I'd rather just click on the link than read a
synopsis and STILL click on the link. If you're too good to click on
a link then by all means continue on in ignorance.

Not too good, just don't enjoy the usual
search-through-the-weeds-to-try-and-figure-out-what-the-guy-means when a
blind link is provided.


In the first case you were talking about problems with BPI and I said
in effect "here's a link to a pdf that discusses the problem in
detail". It wasn't even to support any point, it was just a "hey you
might find this interesting since we're on the subject". I couldn't
find a link so I posted it to my ftp. I'd have thought you be
interested in learning more on the topic.





I am truly sorry you don't like that, but I am
doubtful I'll lose any sleep over it.

I wouldn't think you would. On the other hand there is so much crap
to wade through on the net I'd think you be interested when someone
posts links to a few gold nuggets.