A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:53:28 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

And many times the accept what they're told because it fits their agenda.

Perhaps, but I'll assume laziness and stupidity by default before malice.
My opinion of journalists is that low, I suppose laugh.

The Public editor had an editorial in last Sunday's times which complained
about this sort of laziness in that paper. The result of at least the
cited examples was that this supposedly left-leaning paper was supporting
the current administration's agenda. Not impossible, I suppose, but it's
more likely the result of stupid and/or lazy journalists than a real bias
in favor of the current administration.

- Andrew

Recently, Clark posted:

"Peter R." wrote in
:

On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:

Do you have a point?

Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and
seemingly damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of
disrespecting Navy or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to
explain himself you still stand by the opinion that he did.

You are leaping to an unsupported conclusion.

There is no leaping involved, given that I've explained my original
question in plain language, more than once.

As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have
been misinterpreted by the reader...

Or maybe it was interpreted correctly by the reader? That's the
nature of the beast since the author's statement can legitimately be
taken either way.

When it was clear to me that you misinterpreted my intended question, I
clarified it. Others clarified it, as well. So, even if the original
question was as ambiguous as you thought it was, there is no legitimate
reason to continue to think that I was in any way disrespecting Navy or
Vietnam vets. Indeed, I lost too many good friends in that fight to sully
their memory in that way.

As for you changing your mind, for whatever reason; I really don't care
whether you do or not. Think whatever you want. But, I will continue to
make it obvious to other readers of this thread where I stand, and then
they can make up their own minds about your nature.

Neil




If you want to defend the author, fine, have at it.
Expect others to acquiesce to your badgering? Forget it.

On Jul 9, 3:58 pm, "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

No, absolutely none at all.

John

On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:

Expect others to
acquiesce to your badgering?

My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.

--
Peter

"Bob Crawford" wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt,

His (Neil Gould) original post listed 2 statements (each containing
unfortunately 2 clauses), namely:

"[...]
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.
"

He then asked "Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?"

I believe that your paraphrasing of his question is incorrect and
inaccurate.
Subsequent posts by Neil (i.e. "What does that have to do with the
question at hand: what Vet wouldn't
know the significance of a flyby formation???") further support that
contention.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you.

Okay! What I took his two statements in conflict to mean was "Navy" and
"Vietnam vet".

My bad!

Yet, as a few others have pointed out, unless you're into aviation in some
way, the Missing Man Formation would be totally meaningless, regardless of
what non-aviation branch you were in.

To them, it's just a bunch of planes flying close together.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 7/10/2007 2:21:41 PM, Clark wrote:

His post is ambiguous at best. My interpretation is reasonable even
though
it may or may not have been the author's intent. I'll maintain my stance
on the author's nature.

Very well. We all need a cause and it appears that you have advanced
yours.


As with yourself.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:

Do you have a point?

Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and
seemingly
damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of disrespecting
Navy
or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to explain himself you still
stand by the opinion that he did.

As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have been
misinterpreted by the reader...


So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good.

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:

Expect others to
acquiesce to your badgering?

My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.

Funny thing is, you never badgered the OP.

Doesn't that seem funny, given that several people took it the same way.

Reminds one of the people that endless excuses for their kids.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:53:28 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

And many times the accept what they're told because it fits their agenda.

Perhaps, but I'll assume laziness and stupidity by default before malice.
My opinion of journalists is that low, I suppose laugh.

Never count out malice. :~)

Quite frankly, I've learned to give that priority until something
substantial says otherwise.


The Public editor had an editorial in last Sunday's times which complained
about this sort of laziness in that paper. The result of at least the
cited examples was that this supposedly left-leaning paper was supporting
the current administration's agenda. Not impossible, I suppose, but it's
more likely the result of stupid and/or lazy journalists than a real bias
in favor of the current administration.


Then there's always that category called "Both".

"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.