US Army Cancels Comanche Helo

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message

snip

Kevin, it wasn't a problem, and the logic chain and acronynm use was fine.
Lots
of acronyms was just part of what made KP's posts so special. Here's a
tutorial
I once wrote, explaining how to read Kurt's posts:

LOL! Nice job. When are you going to come up with the complimentary "How to
Explain Simple Concepts to Henry Cobb"?

I haven't the energy to waste on that. To put the concept as simply as possible,"Yew cain't teach someone what don't want to larn."

Guy

Kevin Brooks
Not in this argument it is not. The poster was claiming that we should be
able to forego attack helo operations in favor of systems like Strix for the
deep attack role--and Strix is NOT a deep attack asset, by any definition.

Oh no I didn't g, and, besides, I was explicitely speculating...

While I agree that Strix certainly isn't a deep strike AT asset
like AH's, I'd think that it can do some of the AT job of AH's
in CAS. A small country not being able to afford everything, may
have to do difficult choises between dissimilar systems. My
speculation was that if Strix is seen to improve the AT capability
of the Royal Army significantly, it may be one reason why they
haven't gotten (expensive) attack helos.

Besides, putting Strix and AH's in the same category is rather
modest compared to that some Finnish top brass - quite seriously -
drew a parallel between anti-personnel mines and AH's a few years
ago. (The logic being that if the AP mines have to be abandonded due
to international agreements, AT minefields will be too easy to clear,
and thus AH's are necessary to maintain the AT capability).

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am
scratching
my head...

Brooks

Its kind of a joke now that he does not seem to post here anymore, but
his
postings seemed to be composed almost entirely of acronyms.

Those who have been here for a while will know who i am talking about.

Your post wasnt near as bad as his, I just saw an lot of acronyms and
thought
of him.

Gee, thanks Ron, you really know how to stroke a guy's ego... :-)
Messeur
Plummer apparently abdicated about the time I started participating in
the
group (nad no, damnit, that should *not* infer that I am him, or he is
me...).

I *usually* try to include the full nomenclature for any acronyms that
might
be unintelligible to the general, but militarily knowledgable, reader. I
think most folks here know what GMLRS and ATACMS are. That said, I
reread
that passage after I wrote it--it was not the acronyms that bothered me
so
much as the rather tortuous logic chain I was trying to contstruct. Not
one
of my better efforts, I'd agree. Mea culpa.

Kevin, it wasn't a problem, and the logic chain and acronynm use was fine.
Lots
of acronyms was just part of what made KP's posts so special. Here's a
tutorial
I once wrote, explaining how to read Kurt's posts:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...41.8414A898%40
postoffice.pacbell.net&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_u
group%3Drec.aviation.military%26as_usubject%3DPlum mer-English%2520dictionary
%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_m iny%3D2001%26as_maxd%3D29%
26as_maxm%3D2%26as_maxy%3D2004%26lr%3D%26num%3D100 %26hl%3Den



Guy

I think you could also be the winner of the longest URL ever posted award.
It's certainly the longest I've ever seen. But unlike most of the others,
clicking on it did work.

Joe




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Joe Osman wrote:

snip

I think you could also be the winner of the longest URL ever posted award.
It's certainly the longest I've ever seen. But unlike most of the others,
clicking on it did work.

Ye gods! I had no idea it went on like that.

Guy

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Be careful Kevin, dont want to have to call you Kurt Plummer

OK, I give...what/who is a Kurt Plummer? It's late here, and I am
scratching
my head...

Brooks

Its kind of a joke now that he does not seem to post here anymore, but his
postings seemed to be composed almost entirely of acronyms.

Those who have been here for a while will know who i am talking about.

Your post wasnt near as bad as his, I just saw an lot of acronyms and
thought
of him.

Gee, thanks Ron, you really know how to stroke a guy's ego... :-) Messeur
Plummer apparently abdicated about the time I started participating in the
group (nad no, damnit, that should *not* infer that I am him, or he is
me...).

I *usually* try to include the full nomenclature for any acronyms that might
be unintelligible to the general, but militarily knowledgable, reader. I
think most folks here know what GMLRS and ATACMS are. That said, I reread
that passage after I wrote it--it was not the acronyms that bothered me so
much as the rather tortuous logic chain I was trying to contstruct. Not one
of my better efforts, I'd agree. Mea culpa.

Kevin, it wasn't a problem, and the logic chain and acronynm use was fine. Lots
of acronyms was just part of what made KP's posts so special. Here's a tutorial
I once wrote, explaining how to read Kurt's posts:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...414A898%40post
office.pacbell.net&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_ugroup%3D
rec.aviation.military%26as_usubject%3DPlummer-English%2520dictionary%26as_drrb%3
Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D2001% 26as_maxd%3D29%26as_maxm%3D2%26
as_maxy%3D2004%26lr%3D%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den



Guy


When I first encountered KP, I thought the reason I couldn't understand
him was my own ignorance. My eventual conclusion for 99% of what he
posted was BS/WTF.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!