New Prohibited Area

In article ,
"RST Engineering" wrote:

You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

People are now idiots if they don't top post?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Recently, Matt Barrow posted:

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"bill hunter" wrote in
:

Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm

As Benjamin Franklin said...

"He that would give up essential liberty for a little
security deserve neither liberty nor security."

(Or something close to that.)

He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve
liberty is to never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US
was pre 9/11.)

I disagree with your interpretation that "never be secure" means
"complacent". It could be just the opposite, to mean "responsibly
vigilant", or "know what's going on around you". It's not necessary to
impose on our freedoms to achieve this state of mind.

Neil

RST Engineering wrote:

You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

Jim


"george" wrote in message
oups.com...


Matt Whiting wrote:

Antoñio wrote:
Matt

The post I replied to, including my reply, was a grand total of 20 lines
long. I don't even need to scroll my screen to read it all. What is
your problem, Jim?

Matt

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Matt Barrow posted:

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"bill hunter" wrote in
:

Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm

As Benjamin Franklin said...

"He that would give up essential liberty for a little
security deserve neither liberty nor security."

(Or something close to that.)

He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve
liberty is to never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US
was pre 9/11.)

I disagree with your interpretation that "never be secure" means
"complacent". It could be just the opposite, to mean "responsibly
vigilant", or "know what's going on around you". It's not necessary to
impose on our freedoms to achieve this state of mind.


Think: security blanket.

John Galban wrote:

And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only goes
to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)


By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized
to use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.

Who is to say there isnt going to be CIWS on a pedestal out there that
is LIVE.. I would hate to be on the recieving end of a volley from one
of them.

Dave

RST Engineering wrote:

You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text understand
that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

Who is the idiot?

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

("Bob Noel" wrote)
You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text
understand that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?

People are now idiots if they don't top post?


I thought there was a two post moratorium around here before one invokes the
"i" word. g


Montblack

("RST Engineering" wrote)
You idiots that don't top post or quote hundreds of lines of text
understand that you are simply wasting bandwidth, don't you?


I LIKE TOP POSTING as well, because that's where my screen sends me for each
post - to the top. Small quotes above the new post are OK, so long as I can
see part of the fresh post on my screen without having to scroll for it.

However ....people seem to prefer bottom posting, so I bottom post - don't
like it, but I do it. It is my suspicion that top posting fans are the
silent majority :-)

I hope we can all agree that people need to TRIM THEIR POSTS!!!
(It's to the point that if it happens - great!! If not - oh well)

Isn't June National Top Posting Month at rec.aviation?
If not, it should be. It's only 1 month out of 12 ....for now. g


Montblack

"Dave S" wrote in message
nk.net...
And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only goes
to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?

By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized to
use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.

A prohibited area does no such thing.

Even assuming deadly force was available, this particular prohibited area
isn't large enough to afford the theoretical deadly force to be engaged in
time to "protect" against an airplane.

Pete

In article ,
"Montblack" wrote:

I hope we can all agree that people need to TRIM THEIR POSTS!!!

shack

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule