A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 8th 08, 03:59 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
Max Isn't Well
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

In article , §ñühwØ£f
says...

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:

I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:

biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.

I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some
states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what
are assault "weapons".

Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.

And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal..

'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.

The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear
from their government.


I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after
Way Too ****ing Late.


Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts


The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"
  #2  
Old June 8th 08, 10:22 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
§ñühw¤£f
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
:

In article , §ñühwØ£f
says...

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:

I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris

Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of

alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:
biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.

I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a

media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire

a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver.

Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual

term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is

actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled

by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in

some
states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in

describing what
are assault "weapons".

Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly

controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.

And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is

legal.

'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT

specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.

The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the

citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they

have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to

fear
from their government.

I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*

about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two

after
Way Too ****ing Late.


Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if

merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any

"revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins

share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts


The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald

blink
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".

  #3  
Old June 8th 08, 10:26 PM posted to alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,735
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

§ñühw¤£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
@registered.motzarella.org:

Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
:

In article , §ñühwØ£f
says...

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:

I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris

Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of

alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:
biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.

I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a

media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire

a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver.

Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual

term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is

actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled

by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in

some
states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in

describing what
are assault "weapons".

Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly

controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.

And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is

legal.

'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT

specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.

The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the

citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they

have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to

fear
from their government.

I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*

about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two

after
Way Too ****ing Late.

Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if

merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any

"revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins

share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts


The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald

blink
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".


in a lot of the world it certainly does!


Bertie
  #4  
Old June 8th 08, 10:26 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
More_Flaps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 217
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

On Jun 9, 9:22*am, §ñühw¤£f wrote:
Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
:





In article , §ñühwØ£f
says...


On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:


I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris

Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of

alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:
biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.


I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. *It is a

media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. *They fire

a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. *

Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual

term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is

actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled

by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in

some
states. *The media also uses this term incorrectly in

describing what
are assault "weapons".


Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly

controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.


And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is

legal.

'Legal' but unconstitutional. *The second amendment does NOT

specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.


The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the

citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they

have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to

fear
from their government.


I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*

about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two

after
Way Too ****ing Late.


Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if

merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any

"revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins

share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts


The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald


blink
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".- Hide quoted text -


I think he was killed by his doctors ....

Cheers

  #5  
Old June 9th 08, 02:57 PM posted to alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

In article , Bertie the
Bunyip says...

§ñühw=3F£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
@registered.motzarella.org:

Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
:

In article , §ñühwØ£f
says...

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:

I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris

Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of

alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:
biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.

I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a

media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire

a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver.

Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual

term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is

actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled

by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in

some
states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in

describing what
are assault "weapons".

Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly

controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.

And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is

legal.

'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT

specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.

The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the

citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they

have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to

fear
from their government.

I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*

about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two

after
Way Too ****ing Late.

Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if

merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any

"revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins

share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts

The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald

blink
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".


in a lot of the world it certainly does!


I can't think of anywhere it doesn't!

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"
  #6  
Old June 9th 08, 03:43 PM posted to talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
§ñühwØ£f
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:26:59 -0700, More_Flaps wrote:

On Jun 9, 9:22*am, §ñühw¤£f wrote:
Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
:





In article , §ñühwØ£f
says...


On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:


I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris

Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of

alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:
biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.


I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. *It is a

media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. *They fire

a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. *

Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual

term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is

actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled

by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in

some
states. *The media also uses this term incorrectly in

describing what
are assault "weapons".


Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly

controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.


And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is

legal.

'Legal' but unconstitutional. *The second amendment does NOT

specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.


The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the

citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they

have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to

fear
from their government.


I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*

about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two

after
Way Too ****ing Late.


Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if

merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any

"revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins

share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts


The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald


blink
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".- Hide quoted text -


I think he was killed by his doctors ....

Cheers


WAS IT DR.NO????

--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/...written-notes/


  #7  
Old June 9th 08, 03:44 PM posted to alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
§ñühwØ£f
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

§ñühw¤£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
@registered.motzarella.org:

Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
:

In article , §ñühwØ£f
says...

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:

I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris

Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of

alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:
biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.

I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a

media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire

a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver.

Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual

term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is

actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled

by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in

some
states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in

describing what
are assault "weapons".

Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly

controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.

And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is

legal.

'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT

specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.

The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the

citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they

have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to

fear
from their government.

I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*

about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two

after
Way Too ****ing Late.

Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if

merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any

"revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins

share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts

The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald

blink
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".


in a lot of the world it certainly does!


Bertie


You've been spending too much time in Myanmar...


--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/...written-notes/

  #8  
Old June 9th 08, 05:37 PM posted to alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,735
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

Maxwell luv2^fly99@live.^com wrote in
:

In article , Bertie the
Bunyip says...

§ñühw=3F£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$

7
@registered.motzarella.org:

Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
:

In article , §ñühw

Ø£f
says...

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:

I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,

rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:
biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.

I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They

fire

a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a

revolver.

Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an

actual

term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been

controlled
by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
some
states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
describing what
are assault "weapons".

Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly
controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.

And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons

is

legal.

'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.

The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon

they

have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing

to

fear
from their government.

I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate

you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or

two
after
Way Too ****ing Late.

Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any
"revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts

The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald

blink
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".


in a lot of the world it certainly does!


I can't think of anywhere it doesn't!


Hmmm, you have a point.



Bertie
  #9  
Old June 9th 08, 05:41 PM posted to alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,735
Default NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

§ñühwØ£f wrote in
news
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

§ñühw¤£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
@registered.motzarella.org:

Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
:

In article , §ñühwØ£f
says...

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:

I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,

rec.crafts.metalworking,
misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
Herself
suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
Aratzio says...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks,
"RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
Aratzio wrote:
biggus snippus
I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.

I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
media term
used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They

fire
a
medium powered round one shot at a time just like a

revolver.
Now,
if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an

actual
term
that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
actually
used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
by
federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
some
states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
describing what
are assault "weapons".

Specific
types of military grade weapons should be tightly
controlled.

They are.....like since 1934.

And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons

is
legal.

'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
specify
semi-automatic arms or even small arms.

The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
citizenry with
protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon

they
have.

That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing

to
fear
from their government.

I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
about the
foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate

you're
"mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
after
Way Too ****ing Late.

Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
merikins
have guns since they know that the military could crush any
"revolution"
that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
share. Like
the idea that their vote actually counts

The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald

blink
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".


in a lot of the world it certainly does!


Bertie


You've been spending too much time in Myanmar...



Well, i have spent a lot of time in the third world, and election time
in a lot of it means a coup, but the so-called first world is often
about three weeks from martial law. I'm still astonished as to how few
repercussions did arise form 9-11, in fact. Some other nations that look
entirely stable are less so than one might imagine, IMO. I'm not gonna
worry, though!

Bertie


Berte
  #10  
Old June 9th 08, 06:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default Forged post above - complements of Bertie the Butlipps



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court Max Isn't Well Piloting 4 June 9th 08 06:11 PM
1st AMENDMENT PROTECTS TROLLS FROM BEING TOSed FROM ISP, SUPREME COURT RULES Bertie the Bunyip[_24_] Piloting 8 February 16th 08 05:32 PM
Departure procedures notice Jim Macklin Instrument Flight Rules 12 January 27th 07 03:57 PM
China has taken notice it would seem Mike Keown Military Aviation 8 August 29th 03 07:09 PM
China has taken notice it would seem Mike Keown Naval Aviation 5 August 29th 03 05:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.