Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range

In article ,
(OXMORON1) writes:
Paul answered Art's riddle with:
When you're navigating with paper and pencil, you really need a working
point on the pencil?

Art replied:
Well done Paul. Eactly right.


Not good enough Art, really old time, mechanical pencils prevent all those
pesky shavings from floating around and.....really good navigators use ink
(well ballpoint).
Only Russian Cosmonauts use pencils. any more.
Pilot brand "Razor Points", blue or black, work really well under the red
light.

The red ones don't.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Subject: Death On The North Sea Gunnery Range
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 8/12/2004 7:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(OXMORON1) writes:
Paul answered Art's riddle with:
When you're navigating with paper and pencil, you really need a working
point on the pencil?

Art replied:
Well done Paul. Eactly right.


Not good enough Art, really old time, mechanical pencils prevent all those
pesky shavings from floating around and.....really good navigators use ink
(well ballpoint).
Only Russian Cosmonauts use pencils. any more.
Pilot brand "Razor Points", blue or black, work really well under the red
light.

The red ones don't.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must

Ah the luxuries of the modern air force. (sigh)



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Sharkone, take a hike or decide to make sense.

Quent

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:

My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to substantiate
his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences. The subsequent
responses to my first post have been littered with opinion and emotion, and
have lacked objectivity.

I see now. Your assertions are from empirical evidence, but others' are
"opinion and emotion".

'My' empirical evidence trumps 'yours' every time, so naturally it would
be pointless to continue this merry-go-round. Unless you have something
to offer which truly is objective.


Jack

My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to
substantiate
his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences. The subsequent
responses to my first post have been littered with opinion and emotion, and
have lacked objectivity.

I see now. Your assertions are from empirical evidence, but others' are
"opinion and emotion".

'My' empirical evidence trumps 'yours' every time, so naturally it would
be pointless to continue this merry-go-round. Unless you have something
to offer which truly is objective.


Jack


Reread my post. You'll see that I said experiences, not evidence. The
distinction is not subtle.

Kevin, and the poster with whom I differed, don't have military flying
experience. They were each offering an observer's opinion, which I respect,
even though I disagree with them. Kevin's posting did indeed contain an
emotional argument, but not because I said so.

You too, are proceeding from an emotional position. Your postings clearly
indicate that, at the least you are antagonistic, at most you are looking for a
fight. I encourage you to be a positive contributor to this newsgroup, instead
of the instigator that you have revealed yourself to be.

If you disagree with my original posting, feel free to make your best case, and
point out the flaws in my reasoning. Feel free to share your personal military
flying experiences as well. As I previously said to you, your posting lacks
civility. You would do well to adopt a more conciliatory tone in your
postings.



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

"Kurt R. Todoroff" wrote in message
...
My first post to this subject challenged the previous poster to
substantiate
his assertion which contradicted my empirical experiences. The
subsequent
responses to my first post have been littered with opinion and emotion,
and
have lacked objectivity.

I see now. Your assertions are from empirical evidence, but others' are
"opinion and emotion".

'My' empirical evidence trumps 'yours' every time, so naturally it would
be pointless to continue this merry-go-round. Unless you have something
to offer which truly is objective.


Jack


Reread my post. You'll see that I said experiences, not evidence. The
distinction is not subtle.

Kevin, and the poster with whom I differed, don't have military flying
experience. They were each offering an observer's opinion, which I
respect,
even though I disagree with them. Kevin's posting did indeed contain an
emotional argument, but not because I said so.

Emotional argument? I don't think so. What I saw come of that exchange was
that we were looking at it from different viewpoints, and even have a
different view of the meaning of "danger". You seem to have lumped all "bad
things" that can happen into the "its your own fault" category, while I see
that there are many "bad things" that can happen that occur despite the
individuals best and correct actions. And you will note that I characterized
military training under a broad umbrella when it cam to the "train as you
fight" description--not just pilot-stuff. The fact is that the average
military person is exposed to about the same overall "threat" as any of us
are in terms of your example of highway fatalities, etc.; but he may
typically *add* to that overall recipe by also performing military training
that incurs additional risks, often from sources he has no personal control
over.

Now, you may find all of that "emotional"--I tend to think it is just common
sense.


You too, are proceeding from an emotional position. Your postings clearly
indicate that, at the least you are antagonistic, at most you are looking
for a
fight. I encourage you to be a positive contributor to this newsgroup,
instead
of the instigator that you have revealed yourself to be.

If you disagree with my original posting, feel free to make your best
case, and
point out the flaws in my reasoning. Feel free to share your personal
military
flying experiences as well. As I previously said to you, your posting
lacks
civility. You would do well to adopt a more conciliatory tone in your
postings.

Oh, Gawd...not another "you don't/haven't flown for a living, so you can't
have an opinion" type? You apparently have more in common with Kramer than
you might like to admit...

Brooks




Kurt Todoroff

Oh, Gawd...not another "you don't/haven't flown for a living, so you can't
have an opinion" type? You apparently have more in common with Kramer than
you might like to admit...
BRBR

Kevin,

You've developed a gross propensity for deducing false inferences from my
postings. You're quoting a line that I haven't provided. And now personal
attacks and insults. And personality comparisons between people whom you
haven't met. Your jugular is exposed.



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

"Kurt R. Todoroff" wrote in message
...
Oh, Gawd...not another "you don't/haven't flown for a living, so you
can't
have an opinion" type? You apparently have more in common with Kramer than
you might like to admit...
BRBR

Kevin,

You've developed a gross propensity for deducing false inferences from my
postings. You're quoting a line that I haven't provided. And now
personal
attacks and insults. And personality comparisons between people whom you
haven't met. Your jugular is exposed.

What is truly amazing is how you snipped away the rest of the discourse in
order to respond only to this tongue-in-cheek observation. I guess it was
easier to make that accusation about positing an "emotional argument" (IIRC
that was the wording you used, but you have snipped all of that away...) in
a third-person exchange than it is to defend the assertion?

Here it is again, if you missed it:

"Emotional argument? I don't think so. What I saw come of that exchange was
that we were looking at it from different viewpoints, and even have a
different view of the meaning of "danger". You seem to have lumped all "bad
things" that can happen into the "its your own fault" category, while I see
that there are many "bad things" that can happen that occur despite the
individuals best and correct actions. And you will note that I characterized
military training under a broad umbrella when it cam to the "train as you
fight" description--not just pilot-stuff. The fact is that the average
military person is exposed to about the same overall "threat" as any of us
are in terms of your example of highway fatalities, etc.; but he may
typically *add* to that overall recipe by also performing military training
that incurs additional risks, often from sources he has no personal control
over. Now, you may find all of that "emotional"--I tend to think it is just
common
sense."

My apologies for having drawn a comparison between you and Art; but as I
noted in my last message, and as was clear from the text of my initial
response you you, I answered your questions both from the basis of the
military-in-general (for which I do qualify for more than just "observer"
status) and in terms of the specific field of military aviation, and neither
was couched in "emotional" terms--that would be your construct.

Anywho...enough is enough; better to quit this exchange before it gets nasty
than to go for anyone's "jugular".

Brooks




Kurt Todoroff

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:

I encourage you to be a positive contributor to this newsgroup, instead
of the instigator that you have revealed yourself to be.

Thanks for the encouragement, I do enjoy drawing out some of our more
pompous and arrogant posters so that we can all take their measure.


Feel free to share your personal military
flying experiences as well.

Well gee, thanks, I'll continue to do so.


You would do well to adopt a more conciliatory tone in your
postings.

Or what? Don't you really mean, "appeasing" or "yielding"?

Your manner suggests a strong need to dominate simply by the use of
language rather than by the application of logic and the provision of
useful information.


Jack