McCain in '08

[Skylune[_1_]]

The Flyer: Last year you blocked AOPA President Phil Boyer’s nomination to
the FAA Management Advisory Council, leaving GA pilots and aircraft owners
without a voice on the council. Why did you do that?

"Senator McCain: As head of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
Mr. Boyer and I have had several spirited debates regarding my position
that corporate aircraft, along with airlines, should pay user fees to
reflect their use of the air traffic control system. Although I do not
understand it in this case, I certainly respect a genuine disagreement on
the merits of this issue. What I cannot respect, and the kind of attitude
that I believe would be a disservice to the FAA administrator, is Mr.
Boyer’s unwillingness to characterize my position correctly or to
acknowledge that he misrepresented my position in the past.

For example, an AOPA press release issued after Mr. Boyer’s nomination
hearing was misleading on its face. It said, “McCain pushed the user fees
proposal.” Nowhere did this press release clarify that I was not referring
to the vast majority of AOPA members, who do not own corporate jets. The
distinction is obviously critical to our exchange at the hearing. The
press release and certain Internet postings have left many AOPA members in
the dark regarding key aspects of my views. I think that it is the
responsibility of the head of an organization such as AOPA to fully inform
its members when it comes to an important aviation policy matter.

In answering a post-hearing question, Mr. Boyer said that he, and I quote,
“regret(s) the chairman feels as though I have misrepresented his
position.” Yet his answer again refused to acknowledge that there is a
difference between corporate user fees and general aviation user fees.
Other sectors of the industry — who are as adamantly opposed to fees as
AOPA is — will admit that my position has been misrepresented. Mr. Boyer
will not. Consequently, I question his qualification to be a productive
participant on the Management Advisory Council because such a position
calls for someone who would be able to consider even unpopular issues in
an honest and fair fashion."


Well done, Senator!!! Out the liar!

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:03:44 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>::

>"Senator McCain: As head of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
>Mr. Boyer and I have had several spirited debates regarding my position
>that corporate aircraft, along with airlines, should pay user fees to
>reflect their use of the air traffic control system.

First, AOPA was the originator of the MAC concept. For McCain to deny
hem a seat on it was a personal slap in the face, and more
importantly, it denied GA a voice in government policy making that
directly affects GA. The follow up question the Flyer should have
asked is: Who represents GA on the MAC currently?

Secondly, it's easy to spot the airlines' divide-and-conquer strategy;
Introduce user fees for one small segment of users, so that it will be
easier to include GA later. Separating GA jets from the entire GA
community emasculates them.

In my opinion, the airlines are trembling at the thought of losing
their first class clientele to GA jets. The airlines willingness to
impose user fees upon themselves is a scheme to increase operating
costs for GA jets. User fees will have a significantly lesser
*per-passenger* financial affect on airline ticket prices than it
would on GA jet ticket prices.

As the airlines already have their own weather and other services in
house, they wouldn't have to pay for those through user fees as GA jet
operators would.

McCain is a cleaver rascal. Here's some information:

http://www.truthinmedia.org/

Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletins

TiM GW Bulletin 97/4-6

Apr. 20, 1997
A Phony "Rhinestone Hero"
Who Is Senator John McCain of Arizona?

A Fraud, a Collaborator, and Danger to U.S. Security, Charges Ted
Sampley, Publisher of "U.S. Veterans Dispatch" (July 1995)




FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA Topic: NORTH AMERICAN AFFAIRS

PHOENIX, Apr. 20, 1997 - Remember Senator John McCain of Arizona - the
"American hero" who miraculously survived years of imprisonment in a
North Vietnamese POW camp? If you're to believe Ted Sampley, publisher
of the "U.S. Veterans Dispatch," McCain "is a fraud, a collaborator,
and a danger to the security of the United States.... He is a phony
'Rhinestone hero.'"

Wow! What a contrast from the official public portrait of this
American "patriot!"

(TiM Ed. McCain may be all of what Sampley says and then some... Lest
we forget, he was also one of the "Keating Five," the five U.S.
senators whom the convicted Phoenix savings and loans financier,
Charles Keating, a 'mega fraud' in a financial sense comparable to
that of the McCain's alleged war record, turned to when he needed
favors in Washington, Disease. "Birds of a feather flock together?"

But if even McCain may have been gullible enough or greedy enough in
Keating's case, if just a fraction of Sampley's allegations were true,
this U.S. Senator would even make Bill Clinton, a proven draft-evader,
a genuine hero by comparison!

Is that why both of them are considered "leaders" in the American
government today? What does that tell us about the criteria by which
the leaders in America are selected nowadays? And what does that tell
us about the selectors to our national political "all stars?"?)

Meanwhile, here's what the "Butcher Kiet," one of the North Vietnamese
who allegedly relished torturing and killing the American POW's, said
in an interview with the TIME magazine some two years ago (April
1995):

Kiet: ..... We won the war because we had the right to defend our
country. I would like to emphasize our consistent policy of creating
peace and stability not only in Vietnam but also in other countries in
the region. We have consistently asserted our sovereignty and our
jurisdiction over the Spratly and Paracel islands since we do have the
evidence and grounds for that. All the parties concerned -- Vietnam,
China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei -- should together
negotiate to find a solution to the dispute. It is not our policy to
deal with this issue bilaterally.

TIME: On the 20th anniversary of the war's end, what words do you have
for Americans?

Kiet: There are positive signs in the relationship between Vietnam and
America. It is encouraging that both Americans and Vietnamese are
showing a new willingness to look to the future and bury the past. We
would sincerely like the American people to understand that we are not
commemorating this anniversary to look back to what happened, but to
look forward to the next 20 years and beyond.(TIME,95-04-23)

Now a little more about Vo Van Kiet and one of our senators who
supported the "normalization" of relations:

"...Compare (Senator) McCain's record as a prisoner of war to that of
Army Special Forces Captain "Rocky" Versace, who was captured by
Vietnamese Communists (Viet Cong) on Oct. 29, 1963 in South Vietnam
and who resisted his captors to the end. Very few, if any, in Congress
know about Capt. Versace.

He spent two years chained in a bamboo cage and endured almost daily
torture by the Vietnamese Communists. Capt. Versace continuously
frustrated his Viet Cong interrogators by refusing to obey demands
that he denounce America and accept the Communist Philosophy of
revolution. He told his captors as they were dragging him to an
interrogation hut, "I am an officer of the United States Army. You can
force me to come here, you can make me sit and listen, but I don't
have to believe a damn word you say."

The Viet Cong decided that day to take no more resistance from Rocky
Versace. A few days later, on orders of Viet Cong leader VO VAN KIET,
today Vietnam's prime minister and McCain's friend, Versace was
dragged from his filth-ridden, mosquito-infested bamboo cage for the
last time and forced to kneel with his forehead pressed into the
jungle mud. Capt. Versace was then shot in the back of the head.

(Senator) McCain doesn't talk about MIAs Capt. Rocky Versace, from
Norfolk, VA., or Sgt. Kenneth Roraback of Fayetteville, N.C., or Army
Sgt. Harold Bennett of Perryville, Ark., who were all ordered executed
by his friend, "BUTCHER" Kiet, according to reports.

Compare McCain, the POW hero, to another fellow prisoner of war,
Marine Capt. Donald Cook, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of
Honor. Capt. Cook was awarded our nation's highest award for valor
because, during his years of captivity, he jeopardized his own health
by sharing his meager supply of food and scarce medicines with other
U.S. prisoners who were more sick. He became legendary for his refusal
to betray the military Code of Conduct. On one occasion, Vo Van Kiet's
Viet Cong cadre put a pistol to Capt. Cook's head, demanding that he
denounce the United States.

Capt. Cook, resisted and calmly recited the nomenclature of the parts
of the pistol, giving the Communists nothing. The Viet Cong were so
infuriated at Capt. Cook's resistance that they isolated him from
other American prisoners. They intentionally denied him much needed
food and medicine. Like Capt. Versace, Capt. Cook disappeared and was
never heard from again.

Today, Hanoi claims Capt. Cook died as a result of malaria and that
they do not know where his remains are buried. McCain discourages any
talk about Capt. Versace, Sgt. Roraback, Sgt. Bennett, and Capt. Cook.
To talk about such patriots would require the United States to demand
the return of their remains, or, at the very least, records of their
deaths.

If those MIAs are proven dead and their remains returned, then
McCain's friend, Vo Van Kiet, (now a "friend of the U.S."), would be
forced to explain the holes in the back of their skulls and why he had
ordered the POWs murdered."

---

TiM Ed.: As would the "Vietnam war hero" - Senator John McCain of
Arizona. And he would have to explain a few other "perks" which he
appears to have enjoyed as a POW, if the accounts of some POW sources
are to be believed. Which closes the loop of his likeness with one
Bill Klinton.

Isn't it amazing, therefore, that in our "free enterprise" society,
which is supposed to ensure that the "the cream always rises to the
top," actually the gutter-snakes made it to the top? While the likes
of the Versace's got a bullet in the back of the head. What kind of a
society does that make America today? A ROTTEN ONE, if you ask this
writer...

--------

Here's the full text of Ted Sampley's report, as also shown at:
http//www.ueib.com/ueibdiscussion/_disc1/00000181.htm

ARIZONA'S JOHN McCAIN:

A Fraud, "Rhinestone Hero," and National Security Risk

A Special Two-Part Series Article by Ted Sampley

THE U.S. VETERAN DISPATCH, JULY 1995, SPECIAL EDITION

John McCain the second-term Republican senator from Arizona and former
Navy pilot captured and held prisoner during the Vietnam War, is a
fraud, collaborator, and danger to the security of the United States
because he is being black-mailed by the COMMUNIST Vietnamese. He is a
phony--a "rhinestone hero."

While a prisoner of war, McCain was treated as a "special prisoner,"
with privileges including being given his own private and affectionate
nurse.

McCain's treatment as a "special prisoner" is a contradiction to his
much publicized image of a great war hero who was severely tortured
and kept in solitary confinement for long period's of time because he
refused to break during interrogation.

Ted Guy, a former Air Force Colonel held 5 1/2 years by the Vietnamese
and McCain's senior ranking officer (SRO) in the POW camp, told the
U.S. Veteran Dispatch he cannot remember the communists ever laying a
hand on McCain.

Other sources have told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch that the Vietnamese
are holding as much as fifty hours of film footage secretly taken of
McCain during the time his KGB-trained handlers had him isolated from
other U.S. prisoners of war.

Some of the film, according to the sources, is of McCain receiving
special privileges during the time he claims he was being tortured and
held in long-term solitary confinement.

The sources say interrogators have candid camera footage of McCain
with the nurse, who allegedly supplied him with more than just medical
attention during those lonely days and nights in so-called solitary
confinement.

In June 1992, Trung Hieu, a film director from the Vietnamese Ministry
of Culture and former North Vietnamese Army photographer, told the
U.S. Veteran Dispatch that Hanoi does have considerable film of POW
McCain and some of it involves a Vietnamese woman.

Trung, who worked during the war as an official photographer in North
Vietnam's POW camps, was in the United States seeking political asylum
when he told the U.S. Veterans Dispatch about the film.

Trung also said that during the war he photographed a nearly intact
B-52 bomber, which was shot down at the edge of an air field near
Hanoi in December 1972. He said the North Vietnamese traded the B-52
and some of its surviving crew members to the Soviets for three MIG-23
jet interceptors. Trung said the Soviets wanted to interrogate the
crew about U.S. electronic warfare.

Trung said he took movie film of an American F-111 fighter bomber also
shot down in 1972. He said the F-111 capsule, along with the surviving
crew, was sent to China. The crew, according to Trung, was later
returned to Hanoi.

McCain, who was a member of the 1992 Senate Select Committee on
POW/MIA Affairs, argued emotionally during the hearings that "none of
the returned U.S. prisoners of war released by Vietnam were ever
interrogated by the Soviets."

Trung has said Hanoi has a large, secret vault containing shelves
loaded with POW/MIA related film, which it has never allowed the U.S.
government to view.

Gene Brown, who was employed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
for a period of time in 1992 and 1993, told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch
that, while in Hanoi, he had been inside a vault which contained
wall-to-wall film and that there appeared to be approximately 50 hours
of film about McCain.

Brown, who was in Hanoi secretly working for the DIA under the code
name "Druid Smoke" succeeded in smuggling nearly 4,500 photographs out
of Hanoi by buying them from Communist officials with money supplied
by the DIA. The photos, most of which had never been seen by the U.S.
government, were taken during the Vietnam War and depicted, Americans
killed in the war and the wreckage of many U.S. aircraft.

To avoid embarrassing the COMMUNISTS, USG officials declared the
release of Brown's black market photographs "important progress" and
"unprecedented cooperation" toward resolving the POW/MIA issue and
publicly thanked the Vietnamese for their cooperation.

Garnett Bell, a 30 year employee of DOD and former chief of the U.S.
office for POW/MIA Affairs in Hanoi, told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch
that he had actually seen some film footage of McCain taken by the
Vietnamese when McCain did not know he was being filmed.

Last month the United Press International (UPI) quoted the Cambodian
Khmer Rouge accusing McCain of being a "Vietnamese Agent."

"Who is John McCain?" the rebel group asked rhetorically in a radio
broad-case monitored in Bangkok.

"He is Vietnamese. He has a Vietnamese wife and Vietnamese children.
He is an American by nationality, but he is a Vietnamese agent..."

MCCAIN THE COLLABORATOR

From the first days of McCain's captivity, he seriously violated the
Military Code of Conduct, which outlines the basic responsibilitiese
and obligations of members of the Armed Forces of the United States
who have been captured by the enemy.

According to documentation obtained by the U.S. Veteran Dispatch, not
only did POW McCain promise to give the COMMUNISTS "military
information" in exchange for special hospital care not ordinarily
available to U.S. prisoners, but he also made numerous anti-war radio
broadcasts.

Article V of the Code of Conduct is very specific in declaring that
U.S. military personnel are required to avoid answering questions to
the utmost of their ability and to make no oral or written statements
disloyal to the United States and its allies or harmful to their
cause. Any violation of this code is considered collaborating with the
enemy.

The following is McCain's own admission of collaboration in an article
he wrote, printed May 14, 1973 in U.S. News and World Report:

"I think it was on the fourth day [after being shot down] that two
guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to
show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the
size, shape and color od a football. I remembered that when I was a
flying instructor a fellow had ejected from his plane and broken his
thigh. He had gone into shock, the blood had pooled in his leg, and he
died, which came as quite a surprise to us - a man dying of a broken
leg. Then I realized that a very similar thing was happening to me.

"When I saw it, I said to the guard, `O.K., get the officer.'"

"An officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came
to know very well as "The Bug." He was a psychotic torturer, one of
the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, `O.K., I'll give
you military information if you will take me to the hospital.'"

THE ADMIRAL'S SON GETS "SPECIAL" TREATMENT

McCain claims it was only a coincidence that, about the same time he
was begging to be taken to a hospital, the Vietnamese learned his
father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., commander of all U.S. forces
in Europe and soon-to-be commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific,
including Vietnam.

McCain does concede he survived because the Vietnamese learned who his
father was, rushing him to a hospital where his wounds were eagery
treated.

The former POW admitted in the U.S. News and World Report article that
the Vietnamese usually left other U.S. prisoners with similar wounds
to die, not wishing to waste medication on them. McCain pointed out
"there were hardly any amputees among the prisoners who came back
because the North Vietnamese just would not give medical treatment to
someone who was badly injured. They weren't going to waste their
time."

McCain has failed to mention what he has confided to another U.S.
prisoner, that since the Vietnamese felt they had in their hands such
a "special prisoner" and propaganda bonanza, a Soviet surgeon was
called in to treat him.

The COMMUNISTS figured that because POW McCain's father was of such
high military rank, McCain was of royalty or the governing circle.
They bragged that they had captured "the crown prince."

His COMMUNIST handlers believed McCain, because he came from a
"royal-family", would, when finally released, return to the United
States to some important U.S. miltary or government job. Communist
Interrogators and psychological warfare experts drooled at the
thought.

McCain's handlers were very much aware that he would be under great
psychological pressure not to do or say anything that would tarnigh
the name of his famous military family.

In fact, the COMMUNISTS considered that to be the key to eventually
breaking and then "turning" their "special" prisoner, using blackmail
if necessary.

According to U.S. government documents, within a week of POW McCain
being transferred to the Gai Lam military hospital, the Hanoi press
began quoting him giving specific military information.

One report dated Nov. 9, 1967 read, "The question of the
correspondent, McCain answered: "My assignment in to the Oriskany, I
told myself, was due to serious losses of pilots, which were sustained
by this aircraft carrier (due to raids on the North Vietnamese
Territory * VNA), and which necessitated replacements. From 10 to 12
pilots were transferred like me from the forest to the Oriskany.
Before I was shot down, we had made several sorties. Al together, I
made about 23 flights over North Vietnam."

In that article, McCain was further quoted describing the number of
aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships, and the order
of which his attack was supposed to take place.

Six weeks after McCain was shot down, he was taken from the hospital
and delivered to Room No. 11 of "The Plantation" and into the hands of
two other POWs, who helped further nurse him along until he was
eventually able to walk by himself.

Afterwards, his handlers isolated "special prisoner", McCain from
other American prisoners and made him the target of intense
psychological programs.

MCCAIN CONTINUOUSLY VIOLATES THE CODE OF CONDUCT

In direct violation of the Code of Conduct, McCain, who was supposedly
in solitary confinement, met with and was interviewed by several
foreign news reporters and political delegations, including many
high-ranking North Vietnamese leaders, such as Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap,
North Vietnam's Minister of Defense and natinal hero.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Veteran Dispatch
acquired a declassified Department of Defense (DOD) transcript of an
interview prominent french television reporter Francois Chalais had
with McCain.

Chalais told of his private interview with POW McCain in a series
titled "Life in Hanoi", which was aired in Europe. In the series,
Chalais said his neeting with McCain was "a meeting which will leave
its mark on my life."

"My meeting with John Sidney McCain was certainly one of those
meetings which will affect me most profoundly for the rest of my life.
I had asked the North Vietnamese authorities to allow me to peronally
interrogate an American Prisoners. They authorized me to do so. When
night fell, they took me --- without any precautions or mystery --- to
a hospital near the Gia Lam airport reserved for the military (passage
omitted). The officer who receives me begins: "I ask you not to ask
any questions of political nature. If this man replies in a way
unfavorable to us, they will not hesitate to speak of `brainwashing'
and conclude that we threatened him.

"This John McCain is not an ordinary prisoner. His father is none
other than Admiral Edmond John McCain, commander in chief of U.S.
Naval forces in Europe. (passage omitted).

Another declassified DOD document reports an interview between POW
McCain and Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish psychiatrist who was living
in Cuba at the time. The interview was published in the Havana Gramma
in January 1970.

According to the DOD report, the meeting between Barral and McCain
took place away from the prison at the office of the Committee for
Foreign Cultural Relations in Hanoi. During that interview, POW McCain
sipped coffee and ate oranges and cakes with his interrogator.

During that interview, McCain again seriously violated the Code of
Conduct by failing to "evade answering questions" to the "utmost" of
his ability when he, according to the DOD report, helped Barral by
answering questions in Spanish, a language McCain had learned in
school.

On Dec. 7, 1969, McCain was moved out of isolation and into the "Hanoi
Hilton" with other prisoners of war.

MCCAIN IS HANOI'S LEADING ADVOCATE

Today, McCain, who claims he was brutally tortured by the Communist
Vietnamese, has in?? focally emerged as Hanoi's leading advocate for
normalizaed relations with the United States.

McCain's high-profile and unrelenting support for a government that
brutally tortured and murdered his fellow POWs is causing POW/MIA
Family members and fellow Vietnam veterans to question the senator and
his motivations.

They ask what drives McCain, who owers his public life to the tag
"former POW," to work so hard for Hanoi and so diligently to discredit
any possibility, in fact the probability, that Hanoi held back live
U.S. prisoners of war after the 1973 prisoner release.

The POW/MIA families point out that they worked hard during the
Vietnam War to secure McCain's freedom when he was being held by the
Communists and the familes want to know why he is now betraying them
in their efforts to get answers about their missing loved ones.

None of the senators who served on the 1991-92 Senate Select Committee
on POW/MIA Affairs were as vicious in their attacks on POW/MIA family
members, veterans, and activists than McCain.

During the POW/MIA hearings, Frances Zwenig, the $118,000-a-year staff
director of the Senate Select Committee, reported to McCain that she
was told by the Vietnamese, during a July 1992 meeting with the
Vietnamese, that something had to be done about the POW/MIA activists
who were opposing lifting the U.S. imposed trade embargo against
Vietnam.

Not long after, McCain started demanding that the Select Committee
investigate the activists, prompting one observer to ask, "Are the
Vietnamese now directing the affairs of the Senate Select Committee?"

McCain accused the POW/MIA families and activists who openly
challenged the U.S. government's POW/MIA policy, of fraud. In his
attacks he said, "The people who have done these things are not
zealots in a good cause. They are criminals and some of the most
craven, most cynical, and most despicable human beings to ever run a
scam."

McCain took the lead in the Senate and demanded a U.S. Justice
Department investigation of the activists. The Justice Department did
investigate and found no reason to charge any of the POW/MIA
activists.

When one of McCain's former interrogators, Col Bui Tin, a former
Senior Colonel in the North Vietnamese Army, testified before the
Senate Select Committee, McCain did not display that same "pit bull"
inclination to attack as he did for the POW/MIA families and
activists. Col Tin told the committee that because of his high
position in the Communist Party during the war, he had the right to
"read all the documents and secret telegrams from the Politburo"
pertaining to American prisoners of war. He said not only did the
Soviets interrogate some American prisoners of war, but they treated
them very badly.

During a break in the hearing, McCain warmly embraced Bui Tin as if he
were a long lost brother. McCain fought a hard and successful campaign
to get the U.S.-impoed trade embargo against Vietnam lifted, despite
the opposition of all major veterans organizatinos, the two POW/MIA
family groups, and the majority of the Vietnamese Americans in this
country. The veterans want to know why McCain, the "conservative"
politician, takes such strong stand for the Vietnamese COMMUNISTS and
against such partiotic groups?

JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN, III

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone on August 29, 1936. His
father was Admiral John McCain II, who became commander-in-chief of
the Pacific forces in 1968. Admiral McCain later ordered the bombing
of Hanoi while his son was being held there as a prisoner of war. His
grandfather was Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., the famous commander of
aircraft carriers in the Pacific under Admiral William F. Halsey in
World War II.

McCain's early years were spent in various places on both the east and
west coats. He attended Episcopal High School Alexandria, VA., and
graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in June 1958.

His grades in electrical engineering were "satisfactory", although he
had numerous demerits for breakng curfews and infractions and he
graduated fifth from the bottom of his class.

Nevertheless, in spire of his low class standing, his request for
training as a Navy pilot was granted, no doubt his father's rank of
admiral and family history playing part in the decision.

After qualifying as a Navy pilot, McCain was shipped to Vietnam.

On his 23rd mission over North Vietnam on Oct 26, 1967, McCain was
shot down by a surface-to-air missile.

To relate the event, McCain later recalled that he was flying right
over the heart of Hanoi in a dive at about 4,500 feet, when a Russian
missile the size of a telephone pole came up -- the sky was full of
them -- and blew the right wing off my Skyhawk dive bomber. It went
into an inverted, almost straight-down spin.

"I pulled the ejection handle, and was knocked unconscious by the
force of the ejection -- the air speed was about 300 knots. I didn't
realize it at the moment, but I had broken my right leg around the
knee, my right arm in three places and my left arm. I regained
consciousness just before I landed by parachute in a lake right in the
center of Hanoi, one they called the Western Lake. My helmet and my
oxygen mask had been blown off.

"I hit the water and sank to the bottom.....I did not feel any pain at
the time, and I was able to rise to the surface. I took a breath of
air and started sinking again."

After bobbing up and down, McCain said he was eventually pulled from
the water by Vietnames who swam out to get him.

He said a mob gathered on shore and that he was bayoneted in the foot
and his shoulder was smashed with a rifle butt. He said he was put on
a truck and taken to Hanoi's main prison.

THE "RHINESTONE HERO"

In Congress, McCain's peers tout him as a great war hero. On occasion,
the press categorizes McCain as one of the most tortured prisoners of
the Vietnam War. Neither is true. He was never brutally tortured and,
by his own admission, he collaborated with the COMMUNISTS.

When one totals McCain's 23 missions over North Vietnam, times the
number of minutes he was actually over enemy territory (approximately
20 to 35 minutes per mission), McCain's total time over Vietnam before
being shot down, was about 10 1/2 hours.

For those 10 1/2 hours over Vietnam, McCain, the Admiral's son, was
awarded two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, two Distinguished
Flying Crosses, three Bronze Stars, the Vietnamese Legion of Honor and
three Purple Hearts averaging over one hero medal per hour.

Compare McCain's 10 1/2 hours of combat and 13 medals to that of a
U.S. infantry private who spent 365 days trudging through South
Vietam's jungle and mud, facing death on a daily basis. He was lucky
to leave Vietnam with a simpe good conduct ribbon.

Compare McCain's record as a prisoner of war to that of Army Special
Forces Captain "Rocky" Versace, who was captured by Vietnamese
Communists (Viet Cong) on Oct. 29, 1963 in South Vietnam and who
resisted his captors to the end. Very few, if any, in Congress know
about Capt. Versace.

He spent two years chained in a bamboo cage and endured almost daily
torture by the Vietnamese Communists. Capt. Versace continuously
frustrated his Viet Cong interrogators by refusing to obey demands
that he denounce America and accept the Communist Philosophy of
revolution. He told his captors as they were dragging him to an
interrogation hut, "I am an officer of the United States Army. You can
force me to come here, you can make me sit and listen, but I don't
have to believe a damn word you say."

The Viet Cong decided that day to take no more resistance from Rocky
Versace. A few days later, one orders of Viet Cong leader Vo Van Kiet,
today Vietnam's prime minister and McCain's friend, Versace was
dragged from his filth-ridden, mosquito-infested bamboo cage for the
last time and forced to kneel with his forehead pressed into the
jungle mud. Cap. Versace was then shot in the back of the head.

McCain doesn't talk about MIAs Capt. Rocky Versace, from Norfolk, VA.,
or Sgt. Kenneth Roraback of Fayetteville, N.C., or Army Sgt. Harold
Bennett of Perryville, Ark., who were all ordered executed by his
friend, "BUTCHER" Kiet, according to reports.

Compare McCain, the POW hero, to another fellow prisoner of war,
Marine Capt. Donald Cook, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of
Honor. Capt. Cook was awarded our nation's highest award for valor
because, during his years of captivity, he jeopardized his own health
by sharing his meager supply of food and scarce medicines with other
U.S. prisoners who were more sick. He becamse legendary for his
refusal to betray the military Code of Conduct. On one occasion, Vo
Van Kiet's Viet Cong cadre put a pistol to Capt. Cook's head,
demanding that he denounce the United States. Capt. Cook, resisted and
calmly recited the nonemclature of the parts of the pistol, giving the
Communists nothing.

The Viet Cong were so infuriated at Capt. Cook's resistance that they
isolated him from other American prisoners. They intentionally denied
him much needed food and medicine. Like Capt. Versace, Capt. Cook
disappeared and was never heard from again. Today, Hanoi claims Capt.
Cook died as a result of malaria and that they do not know where his
remains are buried.

McCain discouragese any talk about Capt. Versace, Sgt. Roraback, Sgt.
Bennett, and Capt. Cook.

To talk about such patriots would require the United States to demand
the return of their remains, or, at the very least, records of their
deaths. If those MIAs are proven dead and their remains returned, then
McCain's friend, Vo Van Kiet, would be forced to explain the holes in
the back of their skulls and why he had ordered the POWs murdered.

John McCain is NO Hero. He violated the military Code of Conduct and
willfully collaborated with the Vietnamese, Soviets, and Cubans.

It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
that do know are not talking.

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

I know nothing of the particulars of Sen. McCain's confinement, but this
stuff gives off a very strong aroma of fertilizer:

> Ted Guy, a former Air Force Colonel held 5 1/2 years by the Vietnamese
> and McCain's senior ranking officer (SRO) in the POW camp, told the
> U.S. Veteran Dispatch he cannot remember the communists ever laying a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> hand on McCain.
>
> Other sources have told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch that the Vietnamese
^^^^^^^^^^^
> are holding as much as fifty hours of film footage secretly taken of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> McCain during the time his KGB-trained handlers had him isolated from
> other U.S. prisoners of war.
>
> Some of the film, according to the sources, is of McCain receiving
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> special privileges during the time he claims he was being tortured and
> held in long-term solitary confinement.

etc., etc.

and finally:

> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
> that do know are not talking.

So...guess what?...it's a conspiracy!

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
> Well done, Senator!!! Out the liar!

I think you secretly admire the guy.

[gatt]

>
>> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
>> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
>> that do know are not talking.

Unless they risked their ass as McCain did and served as a POW themselves,
his political opponents' opinion isn't worth cold **** in an old boot.

The more people trash-talk McCain's service a Prisoner of War, the more
likely I am to support him. Right or left, America needs to identify,
publically humiliate and politically destroy any of these political asshats
who challenge the people's combat records for political leverage, especially
when those doing the trash-mouthing never once laced up a boot or a
flightsuit for their people.

Semper Fi.

-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:07:13 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" wrote:
>
>I know nothing of the particulars of Sen. McCain's confinement, but this
>stuff gives off a very strong aroma of fertilizer:
>
>> Ted Guy, a former Air Force Colonel held 5 1/2 years by the Vietnamese
>> and McCain's senior ranking officer (SRO) in the POW camp, told the
>> U.S. Veteran Dispatch he cannot remember the communists ever laying a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> hand on McCain.
>>
>> Other sources have told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch that the Vietnamese
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> are holding as much as fifty hours of film footage secretly taken of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> McCain during the time his KGB-trained handlers had him isolated from
>> other U.S. prisoners of war.
>>
>> Some of the film, according to the sources, is of McCain receiving
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> special privileges during the time he claims he was being tortured and
>> held in long-term solitary confinement.
>
>etc., etc.
>
>and finally:
>
>> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
>> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
>> that do know are not talking.
>
>So...guess what?...it's a conspiracy!
>

Yes. The quote is a bit reactionary. :-)

I meant to quote this version:
http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/printpage.cgi?forum=2&topic=85
which contains this bit of information:

Lest we forget, he [McCain] was also one of the "Keating Five,"
the five U.S. senators whom the convicted Phoenix savings and
loans financier, Charles Keating, a 'mega fraud' in a financial
sense comparable to that of the McCain's alleged war record,
turned to when he needed favors in Washington, Disease. "Birds of
a feather flock together?"

It's all here:
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special39/articles/1003mccainbook5.html


It all started in March 1987. Charles H Keating Jr., the
flamboyant developer and anti-porn crusader, needed help. The
government was poised to seize Lincoln Savings and Loan, a
freewheeling subsidiary of Keating's American Continental Corp.

As federal auditors crawled all over Lincoln, Keating was not
content to wait and hope for the best. He'd spread a lot of money
around Washington, and it was time to call in his chits.

One of his first stops was Sen. Dennis DeConcini. The Arizona
lawmaker was one of Keating's most loyal friends in Congress, and
for good reason. Keating had given thousands of dollars to
DeConcini's campaigns. At one point, DeConcini even pushed Keating
for ambassador to the Bahamas, where Keating owned a luxurious
vacation home.

Now Keating had a job for DeConcini. He wanted him to organize a
meeting with the regulators. The message: Get off Lincoln's back.
Eventually, DeConcini would set up a meeting between five senators
and the regulators. One of them was John McCain.

McCain knew Keating well. His ties to the home builder dated to
1981, when the two men met at a Navy League dinner where McCain
was the speaker.

After the speech, Keating walked up to McCain and told him that
he, too, was a Navy flier, and that he greatly respected McCain's
war record. He met McCain's wife and family. The two men became
friends.

Charlie Keating always took care of his friends, especially those
in politics. John McCain was no exception.

In 1982, during McCain's first run for the House, Keating held a
fund-raiser for him, collecting more than $11,000 from 40
employees of American Continental Corp. McCain would spend more
than $550,000 to win the primary and the general election.

In 1983, during McCain's second House race, Keating hosted a
$1,000-a-plate dinner for McCain, though he had no serious
competition and coasted into his second term. When McCain pushed
for the Senate in 1986, Keating was there with more than $50,000.

By 1987, McCain had received about $112,000 in political
contributions from Keating and his associates.

McCain had also carried a little water for Keating in Washington.
While in the House, McCain, along with a majority of
representatives, co-sponsored a resolution to delay new
regulations designed to curb risky investments by thrifts like
Lincoln. ...

[Jim Macklin]

McCain no, never... He is not trustworthy.



"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
| The Flyer: Last year you blocked AOPA President Phil
Boyer's nomination to
| the FAA Management Advisory Council, leaving GA pilots and
aircraft owners
| without a voice on the council. Why did you do that?
|
| "Senator McCain: As head of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association,
| Mr. Boyer and I have had several spirited debates
regarding my position
| that corporate aircraft, along with airlines, should pay
user fees to
| reflect their use of the air traffic control system.
Although I do not
| understand it in this case, I certainly respect a genuine
disagreement on
| the merits of this issue. What I cannot respect, and the
kind of attitude
| that I believe would be a disservice to the FAA
administrator, is Mr.
| Boyer's unwillingness to characterize my position
correctly or to
| acknowledge that he misrepresented my position in the
past.
|
| For example, an AOPA press release issued after Mr.
Boyer's nomination
| hearing was misleading on its face. It said, "McCain
pushed the user fees
| proposal." Nowhere did this press release clarify that I
was not referring
| to the vast majority of AOPA members, who do not own
corporate jets. The
| distinction is obviously critical to our exchange at the
hearing. The
| press release and certain Internet postings have left many
AOPA members in
| the dark regarding key aspects of my views. I think that
it is the
| responsibility of the head of an organization such as AOPA
to fully inform
| its members when it comes to an important aviation policy
matter.
|
| In answering a post-hearing question, Mr. Boyer said that
he, and I quote,
| "regret(s) the chairman feels as though I have
misrepresented his
| position." Yet his answer again refused to acknowledge
that there is a
| difference between corporate user fees and general
aviation user fees.
| Other sectors of the industry - who are as adamantly
opposed to fees as
| AOPA is - will admit that my position has been
misrepresented. Mr. Boyer
| will not. Consequently, I question his qualification to be
a productive
| participant on the Management Advisory Council because
such a position
| calls for someone who would be able to consider even
unpopular issues in
| an honest and fair fashion."
|
|
| Well done, Senator!!! Out the liar!
|

[Kingfish]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> It all started in March 1987. Charles H Keating Jr., the
> flamboyant developer and anti-porn crusader, needed help.

Anti-porn crusader? Hmmm, don't think I can support that... <g>

[Bob Gardner]

I certainly honor and respect the Senator for what he has done for his
country, but his stand on aviation issues is enough to turn me off.

Bob Gardner

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:03:44 -0400, "Skylune"
> > wrote in
> utaviation.com>::
>
>>"Senator McCain: As head of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,
>>Mr. Boyer and I have had several spirited debates regarding my position
>>that corporate aircraft, along with airlines, should pay user fees to
>>reflect their use of the air traffic control system.
>
> First, AOPA was the originator of the MAC concept. For McCain to deny
> hem a seat on it was a personal slap in the face, and more
> importantly, it denied GA a voice in government policy making that
> directly affects GA. The follow up question the Flyer should have
> asked is: Who represents GA on the MAC currently?
>
> Secondly, it's easy to spot the airlines' divide-and-conquer strategy;
> Introduce user fees for one small segment of users, so that it will be
> easier to include GA later. Separating GA jets from the entire GA
> community emasculates them.
>
> In my opinion, the airlines are trembling at the thought of losing
> their first class clientele to GA jets. The airlines willingness to
> impose user fees upon themselves is a scheme to increase operating
> costs for GA jets. User fees will have a significantly lesser
> *per-passenger* financial affect on airline ticket prices than it
> would on GA jet ticket prices.
>
> As the airlines already have their own weather and other services in
> house, they wouldn't have to pay for those through user fees as GA jet
> operators would.
>
> McCain is a cleaver rascal. Here's some information:
>
> http://www.truthinmedia.org/
>
> Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletins
>
> TiM GW Bulletin 97/4-6
>
> Apr. 20, 1997
> A Phony "Rhinestone Hero"
> Who Is Senator John McCain of Arizona?
>
> A Fraud, a Collaborator, and Danger to U.S. Security, Charges Ted
> Sampley, Publisher of "U.S. Veterans Dispatch" (July 1995)
>
>
>
>
> FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA Topic: NORTH AMERICAN AFFAIRS
>
> PHOENIX, Apr. 20, 1997 - Remember Senator John McCain of Arizona - the
> "American hero" who miraculously survived years of imprisonment in a
> North Vietnamese POW camp? If you're to believe Ted Sampley, publisher
> of the "U.S. Veterans Dispatch," McCain "is a fraud, a collaborator,
> and a danger to the security of the United States.... He is a phony
> 'Rhinestone hero.'"
>
> Wow! What a contrast from the official public portrait of this
> American "patriot!"
>
> (TiM Ed. McCain may be all of what Sampley says and then some... Lest
> we forget, he was also one of the "Keating Five," the five U.S.
> senators whom the convicted Phoenix savings and loans financier,
> Charles Keating, a 'mega fraud' in a financial sense comparable to
> that of the McCain's alleged war record, turned to when he needed
> favors in Washington, Disease. "Birds of a feather flock together?"
>
> But if even McCain may have been gullible enough or greedy enough in
> Keating's case, if just a fraction of Sampley's allegations were true,
> this U.S. Senator would even make Bill Clinton, a proven draft-evader,
> a genuine hero by comparison!
>
> Is that why both of them are considered "leaders" in the American
> government today? What does that tell us about the criteria by which
> the leaders in America are selected nowadays? And what does that tell
> us about the selectors to our national political "all stars?"?)
>
> Meanwhile, here's what the "Butcher Kiet," one of the North Vietnamese
> who allegedly relished torturing and killing the American POW's, said
> in an interview with the TIME magazine some two years ago (April
> 1995):
>
> Kiet: ..... We won the war because we had the right to defend our
> country. I would like to emphasize our consistent policy of creating
> peace and stability not only in Vietnam but also in other countries in
> the region. We have consistently asserted our sovereignty and our
> jurisdiction over the Spratly and Paracel islands since we do have the
> evidence and grounds for that. All the parties concerned -- Vietnam,
> China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei -- should together
> negotiate to find a solution to the dispute. It is not our policy to
> deal with this issue bilaterally.
>
> TIME: On the 20th anniversary of the war's end, what words do you have
> for Americans?
>
> Kiet: There are positive signs in the relationship between Vietnam and
> America. It is encouraging that both Americans and Vietnamese are
> showing a new willingness to look to the future and bury the past. We
> would sincerely like the American people to understand that we are not
> commemorating this anniversary to look back to what happened, but to
> look forward to the next 20 years and beyond.(TIME,95-04-23)
>
> Now a little more about Vo Van Kiet and one of our senators who
> supported the "normalization" of relations:
>
> "...Compare (Senator) McCain's record as a prisoner of war to that of
> Army Special Forces Captain "Rocky" Versace, who was captured by
> Vietnamese Communists (Viet Cong) on Oct. 29, 1963 in South Vietnam
> and who resisted his captors to the end. Very few, if any, in Congress
> know about Capt. Versace.
>
> He spent two years chained in a bamboo cage and endured almost daily
> torture by the Vietnamese Communists. Capt. Versace continuously
> frustrated his Viet Cong interrogators by refusing to obey demands
> that he denounce America and accept the Communist Philosophy of
> revolution. He told his captors as they were dragging him to an
> interrogation hut, "I am an officer of the United States Army. You can
> force me to come here, you can make me sit and listen, but I don't
> have to believe a damn word you say."
>
> The Viet Cong decided that day to take no more resistance from Rocky
> Versace. A few days later, on orders of Viet Cong leader VO VAN KIET,
> today Vietnam's prime minister and McCain's friend, Versace was
> dragged from his filth-ridden, mosquito-infested bamboo cage for the
> last time and forced to kneel with his forehead pressed into the
> jungle mud. Capt. Versace was then shot in the back of the head.
>
> (Senator) McCain doesn't talk about MIAs Capt. Rocky Versace, from
> Norfolk, VA., or Sgt. Kenneth Roraback of Fayetteville, N.C., or Army
> Sgt. Harold Bennett of Perryville, Ark., who were all ordered executed
> by his friend, "BUTCHER" Kiet, according to reports.
>
> Compare McCain, the POW hero, to another fellow prisoner of war,
> Marine Capt. Donald Cook, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of
> Honor. Capt. Cook was awarded our nation's highest award for valor
> because, during his years of captivity, he jeopardized his own health
> by sharing his meager supply of food and scarce medicines with other
> U.S. prisoners who were more sick. He became legendary for his refusal
> to betray the military Code of Conduct. On one occasion, Vo Van Kiet's
> Viet Cong cadre put a pistol to Capt. Cook's head, demanding that he
> denounce the United States.
>
> Capt. Cook, resisted and calmly recited the nomenclature of the parts
> of the pistol, giving the Communists nothing. The Viet Cong were so
> infuriated at Capt. Cook's resistance that they isolated him from
> other American prisoners. They intentionally denied him much needed
> food and medicine. Like Capt. Versace, Capt. Cook disappeared and was
> never heard from again.
>
> Today, Hanoi claims Capt. Cook died as a result of malaria and that
> they do not know where his remains are buried. McCain discourages any
> talk about Capt. Versace, Sgt. Roraback, Sgt. Bennett, and Capt. Cook.
> To talk about such patriots would require the United States to demand
> the return of their remains, or, at the very least, records of their
> deaths.
>
> If those MIAs are proven dead and their remains returned, then
> McCain's friend, Vo Van Kiet, (now a "friend of the U.S."), would be
> forced to explain the holes in the back of their skulls and why he had
> ordered the POWs murdered."
>
> ---
>
> TiM Ed.: As would the "Vietnam war hero" - Senator John McCain of
> Arizona. And he would have to explain a few other "perks" which he
> appears to have enjoyed as a POW, if the accounts of some POW sources
> are to be believed. Which closes the loop of his likeness with one
> Bill Klinton.
>
> Isn't it amazing, therefore, that in our "free enterprise" society,
> which is supposed to ensure that the "the cream always rises to the
> top," actually the gutter-snakes made it to the top? While the likes
> of the Versace's got a bullet in the back of the head. What kind of a
> society does that make America today? A ROTTEN ONE, if you ask this
> writer...
>
> --------
>
> Here's the full text of Ted Sampley's report, as also shown at:
> http//www.ueib.com/ueibdiscussion/_disc1/00000181.htm
>
> ARIZONA'S JOHN McCAIN:
>
> A Fraud, "Rhinestone Hero," and National Security Risk
>
> A Special Two-Part Series Article by Ted Sampley
>
> THE U.S. VETERAN DISPATCH, JULY 1995, SPECIAL EDITION
>
> John McCain the second-term Republican senator from Arizona and former
> Navy pilot captured and held prisoner during the Vietnam War, is a
> fraud, collaborator, and danger to the security of the United States
> because he is being black-mailed by the COMMUNIST Vietnamese. He is a
> phony--a "rhinestone hero."
>
> While a prisoner of war, McCain was treated as a "special prisoner,"
> with privileges including being given his own private and affectionate
> nurse.
>
> McCain's treatment as a "special prisoner" is a contradiction to his
> much publicized image of a great war hero who was severely tortured
> and kept in solitary confinement for long period's of time because he
> refused to break during interrogation.
>
> Ted Guy, a former Air Force Colonel held 5 1/2 years by the Vietnamese
> and McCain's senior ranking officer (SRO) in the POW camp, told the
> U.S. Veteran Dispatch he cannot remember the communists ever laying a
> hand on McCain.
>
> Other sources have told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch that the Vietnamese
> are holding as much as fifty hours of film footage secretly taken of
> McCain during the time his KGB-trained handlers had him isolated from
> other U.S. prisoners of war.
>
> Some of the film, according to the sources, is of McCain receiving
> special privileges during the time he claims he was being tortured and
> held in long-term solitary confinement.
>
> The sources say interrogators have candid camera footage of McCain
> with the nurse, who allegedly supplied him with more than just medical
> attention during those lonely days and nights in so-called solitary
> confinement.
>
> In June 1992, Trung Hieu, a film director from the Vietnamese Ministry
> of Culture and former North Vietnamese Army photographer, told the
> U.S. Veteran Dispatch that Hanoi does have considerable film of POW
> McCain and some of it involves a Vietnamese woman.
>
> Trung, who worked during the war as an official photographer in North
> Vietnam's POW camps, was in the United States seeking political asylum
> when he told the U.S. Veterans Dispatch about the film.
>
> Trung also said that during the war he photographed a nearly intact
> B-52 bomber, which was shot down at the edge of an air field near
> Hanoi in December 1972. He said the North Vietnamese traded the B-52
> and some of its surviving crew members to the Soviets for three MIG-23
> jet interceptors. Trung said the Soviets wanted to interrogate the
> crew about U.S. electronic warfare.
>
> Trung said he took movie film of an American F-111 fighter bomber also
> shot down in 1972. He said the F-111 capsule, along with the surviving
> crew, was sent to China. The crew, according to Trung, was later
> returned to Hanoi.
>
> McCain, who was a member of the 1992 Senate Select Committee on
> POW/MIA Affairs, argued emotionally during the hearings that "none of
> the returned U.S. prisoners of war released by Vietnam were ever
> interrogated by the Soviets."
>
> Trung has said Hanoi has a large, secret vault containing shelves
> loaded with POW/MIA related film, which it has never allowed the U.S.
> government to view.
>
> Gene Brown, who was employed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
> for a period of time in 1992 and 1993, told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch
> that, while in Hanoi, he had been inside a vault which contained
> wall-to-wall film and that there appeared to be approximately 50 hours
> of film about McCain.
>
> Brown, who was in Hanoi secretly working for the DIA under the code
> name "Druid Smoke" succeeded in smuggling nearly 4,500 photographs out
> of Hanoi by buying them from Communist officials with money supplied
> by the DIA. The photos, most of which had never been seen by the U.S.
> government, were taken during the Vietnam War and depicted, Americans
> killed in the war and the wreckage of many U.S. aircraft.
>
> To avoid embarrassing the COMMUNISTS, USG officials declared the
> release of Brown's black market photographs "important progress" and
> "unprecedented cooperation" toward resolving the POW/MIA issue and
> publicly thanked the Vietnamese for their cooperation.
>
> Garnett Bell, a 30 year employee of DOD and former chief of the U.S.
> office for POW/MIA Affairs in Hanoi, told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch
> that he had actually seen some film footage of McCain taken by the
> Vietnamese when McCain did not know he was being filmed.
>
> Last month the United Press International (UPI) quoted the Cambodian
> Khmer Rouge accusing McCain of being a "Vietnamese Agent."
>
> "Who is John McCain?" the rebel group asked rhetorically in a radio
> broad-case monitored in Bangkok.
>
> "He is Vietnamese. He has a Vietnamese wife and Vietnamese children.
> He is an American by nationality, but he is a Vietnamese agent..."
>
> MCCAIN THE COLLABORATOR
>
> From the first days of McCain's captivity, he seriously violated the
> Military Code of Conduct, which outlines the basic responsibilitiese
> and obligations of members of the Armed Forces of the United States
> who have been captured by the enemy.
>
> According to documentation obtained by the U.S. Veteran Dispatch, not
> only did POW McCain promise to give the COMMUNISTS "military
> information" in exchange for special hospital care not ordinarily
> available to U.S. prisoners, but he also made numerous anti-war radio
> broadcasts.
>
> Article V of the Code of Conduct is very specific in declaring that
> U.S. military personnel are required to avoid answering questions to
> the utmost of their ability and to make no oral or written statements
> disloyal to the United States and its allies or harmful to their
> cause. Any violation of this code is considered collaborating with the
> enemy.
>
> The following is McCain's own admission of collaboration in an article
> he wrote, printed May 14, 1973 in U.S. News and World Report:
>
> "I think it was on the fourth day [after being shot down] that two
> guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to
> show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the
> size, shape and color od a football. I remembered that when I was a
> flying instructor a fellow had ejected from his plane and broken his
> thigh. He had gone into shock, the blood had pooled in his leg, and he
> died, which came as quite a surprise to us - a man dying of a broken
> leg. Then I realized that a very similar thing was happening to me.
>
> "When I saw it, I said to the guard, `O.K., get the officer.'"
>
> "An officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came
> to know very well as "The Bug." He was a psychotic torturer, one of
> the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, `O.K., I'll give
> you military information if you will take me to the hospital.'"
>
> THE ADMIRAL'S SON GETS "SPECIAL" TREATMENT
>
> McCain claims it was only a coincidence that, about the same time he
> was begging to be taken to a hospital, the Vietnamese learned his
> father was Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., commander of all U.S. forces
> in Europe and soon-to-be commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific,
> including Vietnam.
>
> McCain does concede he survived because the Vietnamese learned who his
> father was, rushing him to a hospital where his wounds were eagery
> treated.
>
> The former POW admitted in the U.S. News and World Report article that
> the Vietnamese usually left other U.S. prisoners with similar wounds
> to die, not wishing to waste medication on them. McCain pointed out
> "there were hardly any amputees among the prisoners who came back
> because the North Vietnamese just would not give medical treatment to
> someone who was badly injured. They weren't going to waste their
> time."
>
> McCain has failed to mention what he has confided to another U.S.
> prisoner, that since the Vietnamese felt they had in their hands such
> a "special prisoner" and propaganda bonanza, a Soviet surgeon was
> called in to treat him.
>
> The COMMUNISTS figured that because POW McCain's father was of such
> high military rank, McCain was of royalty or the governing circle.
> They bragged that they had captured "the crown prince."
>
> His COMMUNIST handlers believed McCain, because he came from a
> "royal-family", would, when finally released, return to the United
> States to some important U.S. miltary or government job. Communist
> Interrogators and psychological warfare experts drooled at the
> thought.
>
> McCain's handlers were very much aware that he would be under great
> psychological pressure not to do or say anything that would tarnigh
> the name of his famous military family.
>
> In fact, the COMMUNISTS considered that to be the key to eventually
> breaking and then "turning" their "special" prisoner, using blackmail
> if necessary.
>
> According to U.S. government documents, within a week of POW McCain
> being transferred to the Gai Lam military hospital, the Hanoi press
> began quoting him giving specific military information.
>
> One report dated Nov. 9, 1967 read, "The question of the
> correspondent, McCain answered: "My assignment in to the Oriskany, I
> told myself, was due to serious losses of pilots, which were sustained
> by this aircraft carrier (due to raids on the North Vietnamese
> Territory * VNA), and which necessitated replacements. From 10 to 12
> pilots were transferred like me from the forest to the Oriskany.
> Before I was shot down, we had made several sorties. Al together, I
> made about 23 flights over North Vietnam."
>
> In that article, McCain was further quoted describing the number of
> aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships, and the order
> of which his attack was supposed to take place.
>
> Six weeks after McCain was shot down, he was taken from the hospital
> and delivered to Room No. 11 of "The Plantation" and into the hands of
> two other POWs, who helped further nurse him along until he was
> eventually able to walk by himself.
>
> Afterwards, his handlers isolated "special prisoner", McCain from
> other American prisoners and made him the target of intense
> psychological programs.
>
> MCCAIN CONTINUOUSLY VIOLATES THE CODE OF CONDUCT
>
> In direct violation of the Code of Conduct, McCain, who was supposedly
> in solitary confinement, met with and was interviewed by several
> foreign news reporters and political delegations, including many
> high-ranking North Vietnamese leaders, such as Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap,
> North Vietnam's Minister of Defense and natinal hero.
>
> Through the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Veteran Dispatch
> acquired a declassified Department of Defense (DOD) transcript of an
> interview prominent french television reporter Francois Chalais had
> with McCain.
>
> Chalais told of his private interview with POW McCain in a series
> titled "Life in Hanoi", which was aired in Europe. In the series,
> Chalais said his neeting with McCain was "a meeting which will leave
> its mark on my life."
>
> "My meeting with John Sidney McCain was certainly one of those
> meetings which will affect me most profoundly for the rest of my life.
> I had asked the North Vietnamese authorities to allow me to peronally
> interrogate an American Prisoners. They authorized me to do so. When
> night fell, they took me --- without any precautions or mystery --- to
> a hospital near the Gia Lam airport reserved for the military (passage
> omitted). The officer who receives me begins: "I ask you not to ask
> any questions of political nature. If this man replies in a way
> unfavorable to us, they will not hesitate to speak of `brainwashing'
> and conclude that we threatened him.
>
> "This John McCain is not an ordinary prisoner. His father is none
> other than Admiral Edmond John McCain, commander in chief of U.S.
> Naval forces in Europe. (passage omitted).
>
> Another declassified DOD document reports an interview between POW
> McCain and Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish psychiatrist who was living
> in Cuba at the time. The interview was published in the Havana Gramma
> in January 1970.
>
> According to the DOD report, the meeting between Barral and McCain
> took place away from the prison at the office of the Committee for
> Foreign Cultural Relations in Hanoi. During that interview, POW McCain
> sipped coffee and ate oranges and cakes with his interrogator.
>
> During that interview, McCain again seriously violated the Code of
> Conduct by failing to "evade answering questions" to the "utmost" of
> his ability when he, according to the DOD report, helped Barral by
> answering questions in Spanish, a language McCain had learned in
> school.
>
> On Dec. 7, 1969, McCain was moved out of isolation and into the "Hanoi
> Hilton" with other prisoners of war.
>
> MCCAIN IS HANOI'S LEADING ADVOCATE
>
> Today, McCain, who claims he was brutally tortured by the Communist
> Vietnamese, has in?? focally emerged as Hanoi's leading advocate for
> normalizaed relations with the United States.
>
> McCain's high-profile and unrelenting support for a government that
> brutally tortured and murdered his fellow POWs is causing POW/MIA
> Family members and fellow Vietnam veterans to question the senator and
> his motivations.
>
> They ask what drives McCain, who owers his public life to the tag
> "former POW," to work so hard for Hanoi and so diligently to discredit
> any possibility, in fact the probability, that Hanoi held back live
> U.S. prisoners of war after the 1973 prisoner release.
>
> The POW/MIA families point out that they worked hard during the
> Vietnam War to secure McCain's freedom when he was being held by the
> Communists and the familes want to know why he is now betraying them
> in their efforts to get answers about their missing loved ones.
>
> None of the senators who served on the 1991-92 Senate Select Committee
> on POW/MIA Affairs were as vicious in their attacks on POW/MIA family
> members, veterans, and activists than McCain.
>
> During the POW/MIA hearings, Frances Zwenig, the $118,000-a-year staff
> director of the Senate Select Committee, reported to McCain that she
> was told by the Vietnamese, during a July 1992 meeting with the
> Vietnamese, that something had to be done about the POW/MIA activists
> who were opposing lifting the U.S. imposed trade embargo against
> Vietnam.
>
> Not long after, McCain started demanding that the Select Committee
> investigate the activists, prompting one observer to ask, "Are the
> Vietnamese now directing the affairs of the Senate Select Committee?"
>
> McCain accused the POW/MIA families and activists who openly
> challenged the U.S. government's POW/MIA policy, of fraud. In his
> attacks he said, "The people who have done these things are not
> zealots in a good cause. They are criminals and some of the most
> craven, most cynical, and most despicable human beings to ever run a
> scam."
>
> McCain took the lead in the Senate and demanded a U.S. Justice
> Department investigation of the activists. The Justice Department did
> investigate and found no reason to charge any of the POW/MIA
> activists.
>
> When one of McCain's former interrogators, Col Bui Tin, a former
> Senior Colonel in the North Vietnamese Army, testified before the
> Senate Select Committee, McCain did not display that same "pit bull"
> inclination to attack as he did for the POW/MIA families and
> activists. Col Tin told the committee that because of his high
> position in the Communist Party during the war, he had the right to
> "read all the documents and secret telegrams from the Politburo"
> pertaining to American prisoners of war. He said not only did the
> Soviets interrogate some American prisoners of war, but they treated
> them very badly.
>
> During a break in the hearing, McCain warmly embraced Bui Tin as if he
> were a long lost brother. McCain fought a hard and successful campaign
> to get the U.S.-impoed trade embargo against Vietnam lifted, despite
> the opposition of all major veterans organizatinos, the two POW/MIA
> family groups, and the majority of the Vietnamese Americans in this
> country. The veterans want to know why McCain, the "conservative"
> politician, takes such strong stand for the Vietnamese COMMUNISTS and
> against such partiotic groups?
>
> JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN, III
>
> John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone on August 29, 1936. His
> father was Admiral John McCain II, who became commander-in-chief of
> the Pacific forces in 1968. Admiral McCain later ordered the bombing
> of Hanoi while his son was being held there as a prisoner of war. His
> grandfather was Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., the famous commander of
> aircraft carriers in the Pacific under Admiral William F. Halsey in
> World War II.
>
> McCain's early years were spent in various places on both the east and
> west coats. He attended Episcopal High School Alexandria, VA., and
> graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in June 1958.
>
> His grades in electrical engineering were "satisfactory", although he
> had numerous demerits for breakng curfews and infractions and he
> graduated fifth from the bottom of his class.
>
> Nevertheless, in spire of his low class standing, his request for
> training as a Navy pilot was granted, no doubt his father's rank of
> admiral and family history playing part in the decision.
>
> After qualifying as a Navy pilot, McCain was shipped to Vietnam.
>
> On his 23rd mission over North Vietnam on Oct 26, 1967, McCain was
> shot down by a surface-to-air missile.
>
> To relate the event, McCain later recalled that he was flying right
> over the heart of Hanoi in a dive at about 4,500 feet, when a Russian
> missile the size of a telephone pole came up -- the sky was full of
> them -- and blew the right wing off my Skyhawk dive bomber. It went
> into an inverted, almost straight-down spin.
>
> "I pulled the ejection handle, and was knocked unconscious by the
> force of the ejection -- the air speed was about 300 knots. I didn't
> realize it at the moment, but I had broken my right leg around the
> knee, my right arm in three places and my left arm. I regained
> consciousness just before I landed by parachute in a lake right in the
> center of Hanoi, one they called the Western Lake. My helmet and my
> oxygen mask had been blown off.
>
> "I hit the water and sank to the bottom.....I did not feel any pain at
> the time, and I was able to rise to the surface. I took a breath of
> air and started sinking again."
>
> After bobbing up and down, McCain said he was eventually pulled from
> the water by Vietnames who swam out to get him.
>
> He said a mob gathered on shore and that he was bayoneted in the foot
> and his shoulder was smashed with a rifle butt. He said he was put on
> a truck and taken to Hanoi's main prison.
>
> THE "RHINESTONE HERO"
>
> In Congress, McCain's peers tout him as a great war hero. On occasion,
> the press categorizes McCain as one of the most tortured prisoners of
> the Vietnam War. Neither is true. He was never brutally tortured and,
> by his own admission, he collaborated with the COMMUNISTS.
>
> When one totals McCain's 23 missions over North Vietnam, times the
> number of minutes he was actually over enemy territory (approximately
> 20 to 35 minutes per mission), McCain's total time over Vietnam before
> being shot down, was about 10 1/2 hours.
>
> For those 10 1/2 hours over Vietnam, McCain, the Admiral's son, was
> awarded two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, two Distinguished
> Flying Crosses, three Bronze Stars, the Vietnamese Legion of Honor and
> three Purple Hearts averaging over one hero medal per hour.
>
> Compare McCain's 10 1/2 hours of combat and 13 medals to that of a
> U.S. infantry private who spent 365 days trudging through South
> Vietam's jungle and mud, facing death on a daily basis. He was lucky
> to leave Vietnam with a simpe good conduct ribbon.
>
> Compare McCain's record as a prisoner of war to that of Army Special
> Forces Captain "Rocky" Versace, who was captured by Vietnamese
> Communists (Viet Cong) on Oct. 29, 1963 in South Vietnam and who
> resisted his captors to the end. Very few, if any, in Congress know
> about Capt. Versace.
>
> He spent two years chained in a bamboo cage and endured almost daily
> torture by the Vietnamese Communists. Capt. Versace continuously
> frustrated his Viet Cong interrogators by refusing to obey demands
> that he denounce America and accept the Communist Philosophy of
> revolution. He told his captors as they were dragging him to an
> interrogation hut, "I am an officer of the United States Army. You can
> force me to come here, you can make me sit and listen, but I don't
> have to believe a damn word you say."
>
> The Viet Cong decided that day to take no more resistance from Rocky
> Versace. A few days later, one orders of Viet Cong leader Vo Van Kiet,
> today Vietnam's prime minister and McCain's friend, Versace was
> dragged from his filth-ridden, mosquito-infested bamboo cage for the
> last time and forced to kneel with his forehead pressed into the
> jungle mud. Cap. Versace was then shot in the back of the head.
>
> McCain doesn't talk about MIAs Capt. Rocky Versace, from Norfolk, VA.,
> or Sgt. Kenneth Roraback of Fayetteville, N.C., or Army Sgt. Harold
> Bennett of Perryville, Ark., who were all ordered executed by his
> friend, "BUTCHER" Kiet, according to reports.
>
> Compare McCain, the POW hero, to another fellow prisoner of war,
> Marine Capt. Donald Cook, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of
> Honor. Capt. Cook was awarded our nation's highest award for valor
> because, during his years of captivity, he jeopardized his own health
> by sharing his meager supply of food and scarce medicines with other
> U.S. prisoners who were more sick. He becamse legendary for his
> refusal to betray the military Code of Conduct. On one occasion, Vo
> Van Kiet's Viet Cong cadre put a pistol to Capt. Cook's head,
> demanding that he denounce the United States. Capt. Cook, resisted and
> calmly recited the nonemclature of the parts of the pistol, giving the
> Communists nothing.
>
> The Viet Cong were so infuriated at Capt. Cook's resistance that they
> isolated him from other American prisoners. They intentionally denied
> him much needed food and medicine. Like Capt. Versace, Capt. Cook
> disappeared and was never heard from again. Today, Hanoi claims Capt.
> Cook died as a result of malaria and that they do not know where his
> remains are buried.
>
> McCain discouragese any talk about Capt. Versace, Sgt. Roraback, Sgt.
> Bennett, and Capt. Cook.
>
> To talk about such patriots would require the United States to demand
> the return of their remains, or, at the very least, records of their
> deaths. If those MIAs are proven dead and their remains returned, then
> McCain's friend, Vo Van Kiet, would be forced to explain the holes in
> the back of their skulls and why he had ordered the POWs murdered.
>
> John McCain is NO Hero. He violated the military Code of Conduct and
> willfully collaborated with the Vietnamese, Soviets, and Cubans.
>
> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
> that do know are not talking.
>
>
>
>

[Jessica Rhodes[_1_]]

gatt wrote:

> >
> >> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
> >> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
> >> that do know are not talking.
>
> Unless they risked their ass as McCain did and served as a POW themselves,
> his political opponents' opinion isn't worth cold **** in an old boot.
>
> The more people trash-talk McCain's service a Prisoner of War, the more
> likely I am to support him. Right or left, America needs to identify,
> publically humiliate and politically destroy any of these political asshats
> who challenge the people's combat records for political leverage, especially
> when those doing the trash-mouthing never once laced up a boot or a
> flightsuit for their people.

I admire Sen McCain's service in the military and the sacrifices he endured
several decades ago, as a naval aviatior. Today however, he is a politician. To
say that someone can not disagree with a political position, opinion, or a
politician without insulting one's former service as a soldier, sailor, or
airman is fundamentally ridiculous.

[Jessica Rhodes[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:07:13 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" wrote:
> >
> >I know nothing of the particulars of Sen. McCain's confinement, but this
> >stuff gives off a very strong aroma of fertilizer:
> >
> >> Ted Guy, a former Air Force Colonel held 5 1/2 years by the Vietnamese
> >> and McCain's senior ranking officer (SRO) in the POW camp, told the
> >> U.S. Veteran Dispatch he cannot remember the communists ever laying a
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> hand on McCain.
> >>
> >> Other sources have told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch that the Vietnamese
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> are holding as much as fifty hours of film footage secretly taken of
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> McCain during the time his KGB-trained handlers had him isolated from
> >> other U.S. prisoners of war.
> >>
> >> Some of the film, according to the sources, is of McCain receiving
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> special privileges during the time he claims he was being tortured and
> >> held in long-term solitary confinement.
> >
> >etc., etc.
> >
> >and finally:
> >
> >> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
> >> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
> >> that do know are not talking.
> >
> >So...guess what?...it's a conspiracy!
> >
>
> Yes. The quote is a bit reactionary. :-)
>
> I meant to quote this version:
> http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/printpage.cgi?forum=2&topic=85
> which contains this bit of information:
>
> Lest we forget, he [McCain] was also one of the "Keating Five,"
> the five U.S. senators whom the convicted Phoenix savings and
> loans financier, Charles Keating, a 'mega fraud' in a financial
> sense comparable to that of the McCain's alleged war record,
> turned to when he needed favors in Washington, Disease. "Birds of
> a feather flock together?"
>

And while we are discussing the Keating Five, let's not forget the rest of the
Keating Five:

Alan MacG. Cranston (D-California)
Dennis W. DeConcini (D-Arizona)
John H. Glenn Jr. (D-Ohio)
Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Michigan)

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Jessica Rhodes > wrote:

> gatt wrote:
>
> > >
> > >> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
> > >> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
> > >> that do know are not talking.
> >
> > Unless they risked their ass as McCain did and served as a POW themselves,
> > his political opponents' opinion isn't worth cold **** in an old boot.
> >
> > The more people trash-talk McCain's service a Prisoner of War, the more
> > likely I am to support him. Right or left, America needs to identify,
> > publically humiliate and politically destroy any of these political asshats
> > who challenge the people's combat records for political leverage,
> > especially
> > when those doing the trash-mouthing never once laced up a boot or a
> > flightsuit for their people.
>
> I admire Sen McCain's service in the military and the sacrifices he endured
> several decades ago, as a naval aviatior. Today however, he is a politician.
> To
> say that someone can not disagree with a political position, opinion, or a
> politician without insulting one's former service as a soldier, sailor, or
> airman is fundamentally ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that gatt was reacting to the opponent's trashing of McCain's
POW experience rather than any opponent disagreeing with any political
position.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:26:43 -0400, Jessica Rhodes >
wrote in >::

>
>And while we are discussing the Keating Five, let's not forget the rest of the
>Keating Five:

It would seem that they would be off-topic in this message thread.

[Jim Macklin]

why?
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:26:43 -0400, Jessica Rhodes
>
| wrote in >::
|
| >
| >And while we are discussing the Keating Five, let's not
forget the rest of the
| >Keating Five:
|
| It would seem that they would be off-topic in this message
thread.

[John[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:26:43 -0400, Jessica Rhodes >
> wrote in >::
>
> >
> >And while we are discussing the Keating Five, let's not forget the rest of the
> >Keating Five:
>
> It would seem that they would be off-topic in this message thread.

Bringing up Keating Five in the context of the one Republican (sort of) Senator in
the bunch, and posting a dissertation about it is ok for Larry.

Merely mentioning the name of the other four Keating Five Senators after Larry's
dissertation is "off topic."

Got it.

[Larry Dighera]

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:26:43 -0400, Jessica Rhodes
>
>| wrote in >::
>|
>| >
>| >And while we are discussing the Keating Five, let's not
>forget the rest of the
>| >Keating Five:
>|
>| It would seem that they would be off-topic in this message
>thread.
>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:03:34 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<T%Wsg.67139$ZW3.49994@dukeread04>::

>why?

Because The Keating Five are not the topic the original poster chose
as the subject of this message thread. The thread refers to McCain
not the Keating Five. While McCain was a member of the Keating Five,
the subject only refers to McCain, so discussing the other members of
the Keating Five would appear to be off-topic.

If a reader chooses to change the subject of the message, s/he should
change the subject thus:

Subject: OT: The Keating Five (Was: Re: McCain in '08)

Surely you were able to deduce that.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:26:43 -0400, Jessica Rhodes
> >
> >| wrote in >::
> >|
> >| >
> >| >And while we are discussing the Keating Five, let's not
> >forget the rest of the
> >| >Keating Five:
> >|
> >| It would seem that they would be off-topic in this message
> >thread.
> >
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:03:34 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote in
> <T%Wsg.67139$ZW3.49994@dukeread04>::
>
> >why?
>
> Because The Keating Five are not the topic the original poster chose
> as the subject of this message thread. The thread refers to McCain
> not the Keating Five. While McCain was a member of the Keating Five,
> the subject only refers to McCain, so discussing the other members of
> the Keating Five would appear to be off-topic.
>
> If a reader chooses to change the subject of the message, s/he should
> change the subject thus:
>
> Subject: OT: The Keating Five (Was: Re: McCain in '08)
>
> Surely you were able to deduce that.

The subject is "McCain in '08", so discussion of his involvement in the
:Keating 5" IS relevant to the subject line. Unfortunately, the subject
line is relevant to rec.aviation.piloting only by the a thin thread --
namely McCain's relationship with GA.

In that context, his impact on GA IS relevant, as are character issues.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> The subject is "McCain in '08", so discussion of his involvement in the
> :Keating 5" IS relevant to the subject line. Unfortunately, the subject
> line is relevant to rec.aviation.piloting only by the a thin thread --
> namely McCain's relationship with GA.
>
> In that context, his impact on GA IS relevant, as are character issues.
>

But the rest of the Keating Five would not be relevant. It appears you've
not followed the thread.

[Skylune[_1_]]

Listen, you lefty, this "news" does not invalidate his criticisms of the
Destroyer.

Go out and vote for Angelides, Kerry or Clinton, or whomever you deem to
be a more honest pol.

[Skylune[_1_]]

I admire McCain for his service to the country. I dislike Boyer for his
dis-service to the country.

At least you didn't go on a whacko left wing character assination track,
like certain of the lefties out west...

[gatt]

"Jessica Rhodes" > wrote in message
...

>> Unless they risked their ass as McCain did and served as a POW
>> themselves,
>> his political opponents' opinion isn't worth cold **** in an old boot.

> I admire Sen McCain's service in the military and the sacrifices he
> endured several decades ago,

I don't for a second admire that he was a POW. It wasn't his choice. He
didn't want to be one. Having been raised by a POW and seen the long-term
effects of what subhumans did to him, there's nothing about his experience
to admire. One can only respect them and remember to give thanks. I would
have been more clear had I said "his political opponents' opinion OF HIS
MILITARY SERVICE isn't worth..." which is what I meant. Criticising his
political policies or career is of course fair, but when you start picking
on a POW for being a POW, you are patently unworthy to be a leader of
Americans.

> To say that someone can not disagree with a political position, opinion,
> or a politician without insulting one's former service as a soldier,
> >sailor, or airman is fundamentally ridiculous.

I absolutely agree that once a person becomes a politician they're fair game
for public opinion, BUT, in no way does that give another politician an
excuse to discredit or call into question his military record, whether it's
McCain, Murtha, Bush Sr. or anybody else the United States of America saw
fit to decorate.

Here's the bottom line. McCain was a POW. He gave many years of his life
in service of his country. To attempt to diminish or devalue that for
political leverage is absolutely beneath contempt. That's the way it is.
Semper Fi.

-c

[gatt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-

> I'm pretty sure that gatt was reacting to the opponent's trashing of
> McCain's
> POW experience rather than any opponent disagreeing with any political
> position.

Exactly. I was less than clear in my previous post, but that's what I meant.

(I disagree strongly with much of what Murtha says, but in other forums
there are folks calling him a coward, a traitor and a liar, which is to
suggest that the Navy and the Marine Corps honor cowardice or that they lied
when they saw fit to decorate him for heroism. Such an accusation
challenges not only the integrity of the Murtha, but of the Marine Corps,
and if a politican does that, he's not going to get my vote, he's going to
get my absolute contempt. Semper Fi, et al.)

-c

[gatt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
>I admire McCain for his service to the country. I dislike Boyer for his
> dis-service to the country.
>
> At least you didn't go on a whacko left wing character assination track,
> like certain of the lefties out west...

Character assassination is not a sole tactic of the left wing. The combat
service records of Murtha, Kerry and McCain were all attacked by the right.
I value the integrity of my own political standards which is why I was also
royally ****ed when -some- of the left was accusing GHWB of cowardice for
bailing out of his aircraft.

It's a cheap shot; accusing somebody of cowardice in combat during a life or
death struggle in which the accuser was never close to any similar
situation. Unfortunately, it's a tactic employed by contemptable and
embarrassing elements of both the left -and- right.

-c

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The subject is "McCain in '08", so discussion of his involvement in the
> > :Keating 5" IS relevant to the subject line. Unfortunately, the subject
> > line is relevant to rec.aviation.piloting only by the a thin thread --
> > namely McCain's relationship with GA.
> >
> > In that context, his impact on GA IS relevant, as are character issues.
> >
>
> But the rest of the Keating Five would not be relevant. It appears you've
> not followed the thread.

Actually, I have followed it. Naming the "Keating Five" does not stray
from the topic. Any further discussion of them IS irrelevant.

The thread really ought to be on rec.aviation.misc, rather than in
piloting.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, I have followed it. Naming the "Keating Five" does not stray
> from the topic.
>

Yes it does.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
utaviation.com>,
"Skylune" > wrote:

> I admire McCain for his service to the country. I dislike Boyer for his
> dis-service to the country.
>
> At least you didn't go on a whacko left wing character assination track,
> like certain of the lefties out west...

You just dislike Boyer for breaking with your preconceived notions about
GA. Boyer may have his faults, but lying is not one of them.

[Skylune[_1_]]

by "gatt" > Jul 12, 2006 at 05:38 PM



Character assassination is not a sole tactic of the left wing. The combat

service records of Murtha, Kerry and McCain were all attacked by the
right.
I value the integrity of my own political standards which is why I was
also
royally ****ed when -some- of the left was accusing GHWB of cowardice for

bailing out of his aircraft.

It's a cheap shot; accusing somebody of cowardice in combat during a life
or
death struggle in which the accuser was never close to any similar
situation. Unfortunately, it's a tactic employed by contemptable and
embarrassing elements of both the left -and- right

<<

I agree. This is where our politics is. It started with the Robert Bork
SCOTUS hearings, and was perfected by the Clintonistas. Now, many members
of both parties attack each other, rather than debate ideas. Its sad,
actually....

[Montblack[_1_]]

("gatt" wrote)
> I don't for a second admire that he was a POW. It wasn't his choice. He
> didn't want to be one. Having been raised by a POW and seen the long-term
> effects of what subhumans did to him, there's nothing about his experience
> to admire. One can only respect them and remember to give thanks.


If you would, come back at this again, maybe even from head on, but do,
please, take another swing at this. It's an interesting thought, and
perspective.

Just a reader trying to sort out: the experience, choice, the man, give
thanks, respect, and admire.


Montblack

[Skylune[_1_]]

by Orval Fairbairn > Jul 12, 2006 at 05:43 PM



You just dislike Boyer for breaking with your preconceived notions about
GA. Boyer may have his faults, but lying is not one of them.

<<

No. He confirmed my notions, which were conceived by my own personal
experiences prior to having even heard of Boyer or the AOPA.

On lying: I agree with Senator McCain, but I won't quibble about whether
intentional distortion or making statements based on partial or biased
info (which Boyer does regularly) constitutes a lie. I happen to think
McCain was being diplomatic, but it is clear that he (correctly) sees
Boyer as a man with zero integrity.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Character assassination is not a sole tactic of the left wing. The combat
> service records of Murtha, Kerry and McCain were all attacked by the
> right.

They were? Have any examples?

[Owen Hiller[_1_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Actually, I have followed it. Naming the "Keating Five" does not stray
> > from the topic.
> >
>
> Yes it does.

No it does not.

[Owen Hiller[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >| On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:26:43 -0400, Jessica Rhodes
> >
> >| wrote in >::
> >|
> >| >
> >| >And while we are discussing the Keating Five, let's not
> >forget the rest of the
> >| >Keating Five:
> >|
> >| It would seem that they would be off-topic in this message
> >thread.
> >
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:03:34 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote in
> <T%Wsg.67139$ZW3.49994@dukeread04>::
>
> >why?
>
> Because The Keating Five are not the topic the original poster chose
> as the subject of this message thread. The thread refers to McCain
> not the Keating Five. While McCain was a member of the Keating Five,
> the subject only refers to McCain, so discussing the other members of
> the Keating Five would appear to be off-topic.
>
> If a reader chooses to change the subject of the message, s/he should
> change the subject thus:
>
> Subject: OT: The Keating Five (Was: Re: McCain in '08)
>
> Surely you were able to deduce that.

You are the man who brought up "Keating Five" in the thread. Follow your
own advice first before you dictate to others.

[Owen Hiller[_1_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Jessica Rhodes" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Unless they risked their ass as McCain did and served as a POW
> >> themselves,
> >> his political opponents' opinion isn't worth cold **** in an old boot.
>
> > I admire Sen McCain's service in the military and the sacrifices he
> > endured several decades ago,
>
> I don't for a second admire that he was a POW. It wasn't his choice. He
> didn't want to be one. Having been raised by a POW and seen the long-term
> effects of what subhumans did to him, there's nothing about his experience
> to admire. One can only respect them and remember to give thanks. I would
> have been more clear had I said "his political opponents' opinion OF HIS
> MILITARY SERVICE isn't worth..." which is what I meant. Criticising his
> political policies or career is of course fair, but when you start picking
> on a POW for being a POW, you are patently unworthy to be a leader of
> Americans.
>
> > To say that someone can not disagree with a political position, opinion,
> > or a politician without insulting one's former service as a soldier,
> > >sailor, or airman is fundamentally ridiculous.
>
> I absolutely agree that once a person becomes a politician they're fair game
> for public opinion, BUT, in no way does that give another politician an
> excuse to discredit or call into question his military record, whether it's
> McCain, Murtha, Bush Sr. or anybody else the United States of America saw
> fit to decorate.
>
> Here's the bottom line. McCain was a POW. He gave many years of his life
> in service of his country. To attempt to diminish or devalue that for
> political leverage is absolutely beneath contempt. That's the way it is.
> Semper Fi.

To attempt to use one's past service and sacrifices for today's political
leverage does great disservice to EVERYONE who has had sacrifice.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("De Loon De Loon" wrote)
> I agree. This is where our politics is. It started with the Robert Bork
> SCOTUS hearings, and was perfected by the Clintonistas. Now, many members
> of both parties attack each other, rather than debate ideas. Its sad,
> actually....


Today's politicions are rank amateurs compared to some of the old school
boys!

1800, 1828, 1860....


Montblack
As a result, Federalist newspapers claimed that the election of Jefferson
would cause the "teaching of murder robbery, rape, adultery and incest".

[Owen Hiller[_1_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> lkaboutaviation.com...
> >I admire McCain for his service to the country. I dislike Boyer for his
> > dis-service to the country.
> >
> > At least you didn't go on a whacko left wing character assination track,
> > like certain of the lefties out west...
>
> Character assassination is not a sole tactic of the left wing. The combat
> service records of Murtha, Kerry and McCain were all attacked by the right.
> I value the integrity of my own political standards which is why I was also
> royally ****ed when -some- of the left was accusing GHWB of cowardice for
> bailing out of his aircraft.
>
> It's a cheap shot; accusing somebody of cowardice in combat during a life or
> death struggle in which the accuser was never close to any similar
> situation. Unfortunately, it's a tactic employed by contemptable and
> embarrassing elements of both the left -and- right.

We admire Kerry's four (4) months that he served in theatre in Vietnam. But
that is not relevant to his political positions today, or the lack of any
accomplishments in 20 years as a Senator, plus his time spent (not much else we
can say about it is there?) as Mike Dukakis's lieutenant governor.

[Owen Hiller[_1_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> news:ihatessppaamm-
>
> > I'm pretty sure that gatt was reacting to the opponent's trashing of
> > McCain's
> > POW experience rather than any opponent disagreeing with any political
> > position.
>
> Exactly. I was less than clear in my previous post, but that's what I meant.
>
> (I disagree strongly with much of what Murtha says, but in other forums
> there are folks calling him a coward, a traitor and a liar, which is to
> suggest that the Navy and the Marine Corps honor cowardice or that they lied
> when they saw fit to decorate him for heroism. Such an accusation
> challenges not only the integrity of the Murtha, but of the Marine Corps,
> and if a politican does that, he's not going to get my vote, he's going to
> get my absolute contempt. Semper Fi, et al.)

It's pretty clear what Murtha's agenda is.

[Owen Hiller[_1_]]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, Jessica Rhodes > wrote:
>
> > gatt wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
> > > >> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
> > > >> that do know are not talking.
> > >
> > > Unless they risked their ass as McCain did and served as a POW themselves,
> > > his political opponents' opinion isn't worth cold **** in an old boot.
> > >
> > > The more people trash-talk McCain's service a Prisoner of War, the more
> > > likely I am to support him. Right or left, America needs to identify,
> > > publically humiliate and politically destroy any of these political asshats
> > > who challenge the people's combat records for political leverage,
> > > especially
> > > when those doing the trash-mouthing never once laced up a boot or a
> > > flightsuit for their people.
> >
> > I admire Sen McCain's service in the military and the sacrifices he endured
> > several decades ago, as a naval aviatior. Today however, he is a politician.
> > To
> > say that someone can not disagree with a political position, opinion, or a
> > politician without insulting one's former service as a soldier, sailor, or
> > airman is fundamentally ridiculous.
>
> I'm pretty sure that gatt was reacting to the opponent's trashing of McCain's
> POW experience rather than any opponent disagreeing with any political
> position.

Who was attacking McCain's PoW experience?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.
>

But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message wasn't
political at all.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
> Veterans for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message
> wasn't political at all.


Yeah, sure. Ok.

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth/Funding>
SBVT - Funding

I must have been watching a different election.

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth>
SBVT - scroll down to History.


Montblack

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > Character assassination is not a sole tactic of the left wing. The
combat
> > service records of Murtha, Kerry and McCain were all attacked by the
> > right.
>
> They were? Have any examples?

I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> Actually, I have followed it. Naming the "Keating Five" does not stray
> from the topic. Any further discussion of them IS irrelevant.
>
> The thread really ought to be on rec.aviation.misc, rather than in
> piloting.

What we need is a new group. Call it rec.aviation.politics. From the
amount of interest in discussing politics in THIS group, it ought to be a
big hit! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:04:15 -0400, Owen Hiller
> wrote in >::

>
>You are the man who brought up "Keating Five" in the thread.

Yes. I provided an excerpt of a news article that indicated that
McCain (the topic of this message thread) was a member of the Keating
Five. To overlook that while assessing McCain's character would be an
error of omission. Don't you agree?

>Follow your own advice first before you dictate to others.

I'm not dictating anything to anyone. I just pointed out, that to
discuss the other four members of the Keating Five would not shed any
more light on McCain's character.

It seems several readers are having some difficulty comprehending the
concept of on-topic discussion.

Of course, we are all free to post as we please and suffer the
consequences of those article we post; that's the egalitarian nature
of Usenet.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:16:15 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>What we need is a new group. Call it rec.aviation.politics. From the
>amount of interest in discussing politics in THIS group, it ought to be a
>big hit!

I'll second that. I'd like to see a Experimental Aircraft Association
newsgroup too.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> I'll second that. I'd like to see a Experimental Aircraft Association
> newsgroup too.


What's wrong with rec.aviation.homebuilt as an outlet for EAA questions?


Montblack

[gatt]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't for a second admire that he was a POW. It wasn't his choice. He
>> didn't want to be one. Having been raised by a POW and seen >>the
>> long-term effects of what subhumans did to him, there's nothing about
>> his experience to admire. One can only respect them and >>remember to
>> give thanks.

> If you would, come back at this again, maybe even from head on, but do,
> please, take another swing at this. It's an interesting thought, and
> perspective.

I was raised by a former POW who was shot down and then tortured by the
Gestapo because his dogtags were missing and he "looked German"; imprisoned
at Stalag XVII-B and later left to die at KZ Mauthausen. I admire him for
his courage, having served as an aerial gunner. I certainly don't admire
his experience as a POW; he would have thought such a thing crazy.

Having said that, the lessons one learns from the experience of such a
parent are both difficult to articulate and impossible to forget.

> Just a reader trying to sort out: the experience, choice, the man, give
> thanks, respect, and admire.

I honor the integrity and strength of character that made him who he was in
spite of the happened to him, but I cannot "admire" his experience because I
would never want to see men, women and children stripped naked and machine
gunned into mass graves or shredded alive by SS dogs, nor would I want to
see my name on the wall at Andersonville. Whatever strength it might bring
to my character simply wouldn't be worth it.

Hope that makes more sense. If he were to have entered the political arena,
we might have disagreed bitterly on some issues, but I would never have
attempted to devalue his wartime courage or service to this country. This is
what I perceive to be happening to decorated veterans by politicians for
political purposes.

-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

>> Here's the bottom line. McCain was a POW. He gave many years of his
>> life
>> in service of his country. To attempt to diminish or devalue that for
>> political leverage is absolutely beneath contempt. That's the way it is.
>> Semper Fi.
>
> To attempt to use one's past service and sacrifices for today's political
> leverage does great disservice to EVERYONE who has had sacrifice.

To attempt to diminish one's past service and sacrifices for today's
political leverage does great disservice to everyone who has had to
sacrifice.

Here's an example:

"A man with a couple of years of active duty and the rest of his 37 year
career spent in the Marine Corps Reserve. [Is that somehow a discredit to
his character?] A man with one year in Vietnam as a staff intelligence
offer. A man who's no more been in combat or is a war hero than I am. Even
John Kerry has more combat experience than Jack Murtha."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1655125/posts

For perspective:

"In 1959, Murtha, then a captain, took command of the 34th Special Infantry
Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves
after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the
Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer
(S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two
Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the
Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service
Medal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murtha#Early_life_and_military_service

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:JCdtg.7776
>> I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.
>>
>
> But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
> Veterans for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message
> wasn't political at all.

Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.


Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.

-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:31:31 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>
>What's wrong with rec.aviation.homebuilt as an outlet for EAA questions?

It fails to address all the other EAA activities: Sport Pilot, Air
Venture, ...

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
Veterans
> for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message wasn't
> political at all.

Humm, that is an interesting take. Who else would be attacking Kerry, if
not the right? And to say it isn't political, is, wellll...<g>
--
Jim in NC

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:31:31 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>> I'll second that. I'd like to see a Experimental Aircraft Association
>> newsgroup too.
>
>
>What's wrong with rec.aviation.homebuilt as an outlet for EAA questions?
>
And alt.rant for the politics?

Don

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:fnctg.6780

>> Character assassination is not a sole tactic of the left wing. The combat
>> service records of Murtha, Kerry and McCain were all attacked by the
>> right.
>
> They were? Have any examples?

You've already suggested that the Swift Boat thing wasn't
politically-motivated, which is ludicrous because it only came about when
Kerry became a leading candidate in the Presidential race. But, a
three-minute websearch yields plenty of examples:

[1]

"Rep. Jean Schmidt flung the word "coward" at a decorated war veteran from
Pennsylvania last week, but the Ohio Republican's comments landed with a
splat in her own Cincinnati district, where some supporters are backing away
as she scrambles to explain what she meant."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/22/AR2005112201699.html

[2]

"Summary: Rush Limbaugh twice falsely claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
had "admitted that torture worked on him" during his five years as a
prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090006 [There's even VIDEO.]

[3]
Keating describes in detail how, in 1992, Sampley commenced a "scurrilous"
crusade to punish McCain:

"Sampley ... accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped
death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first
been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.

"To those who know McCain and are familiar with his behavior in captivity,
the charge is ludicrous. McCain resisted his captors to such a degree that
he was isolated in a special prison for troublemakers. He repeatedly refused
special favors, including early release, and emerged as a spiritual and
religious leader for other prisoners. Nonetheless, Sampley was persistent
enough in his claims that the press in McCain's home state of Arizona picked
up on the KGB story."

In 1992, Sampley wrote a long article that portrayed McCain as a "Manchurian
candidate," who had betrayed America to the North Vietnamese and then
enlisted as a secret Communist agent . But it wasn't until seven years later
that the celebrated Navy pilot and ex-POW found out how much damage such
smears could inflict. After McCain declared his presidential candidacy in
1999, Sampley revived the "Manchurian candidate" smear as a convenient
weapon for the Senator's political enemies.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/02/10/kerry_smear/index.html

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

> We admire Kerry's four (4) months that he served in theatre in Vietnam.
> But
> that is not relevant to his political positions today,

Here's another.

"I'm wondering if McCain's been taken prisoner and being held as a POW by
the Kerry camp, in the Kerry Hilton, somewhere in the basement of the
C." -Rush Limbaugh http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100006

Rush Limbaugh's service to America isn't worth two cold turds in a toilet
bowl. For him to make a joke about a POW is outrageous. Limbaugh never
looked into the eyes of a loved one struggling with some unimaginable
rememberance coming at him from the dark place where old warriors attempt to
contain such things.

If he did, he would understand that making a joke about somebody's Prisoner
of War experience is rather like making a joke about a warrior watching his
comrades die.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Humm, that is an interesting take. Who else would be attacking Kerry, if
> not the right?
>

Those that wanted to set the record straight about what Kerry was saying
about their service.


>
> And to say it isn't political, is, wellll...
>

....accurate.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Character assassination is not a sole tactic of the left wing. The combat
> > service records of Murtha, Kerry and McCain were all attacked by the
> > right.
>
> They were? Have any examples?

This would be funny if you weren't serious (I had to check to be sure)
.. . .

Kerry: Well, besides the commercials on TV and countless appearances on
talk shows, there's that book -- Unfit for Command -- and a significant
portion of it is dedicated to a shameless misrepresentation of Kerry's
service.

And please don't try to tell me it wasn't politically motivated or that
those guys didn't overwhelmingly represent the right side of our
political spectrum.

McCain: One only has to look at the 2000 Republican Primary in general,
and the SC Primary in particular. That was certainly a disgusting
display.

Murtha: I assume you read the newspapers and the net "news". The attack
on his service record is right out of the Swift Boat Veterans for
"truth" playbook.

Doug Reese

[gatt]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...

>> I agree. This is where our politics is. It started with the Robert Bork
>> SCOTUS hearings, and was perfected by the Clintonistas. Now, many
>> members of both parties attack each other, rather than debate ideas. Its
>> sad, actually....
> Today's politicions are rank amateurs compared to some of the old school
> boys!
>
> 1800, 1828, 1860....

You are both correct. But, hey, back in The Day at least you could
challenge the opponent to a duel or just beat him with your cane on the
Senate floor... (We need more Senator fights.)

-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

>> I'm pretty sure that gatt was reacting to the opponent's trashing of
>> McCain's
>> POW experience rather than any opponent disagreeing with any political
>> position.
>
> Who was attacking McCain's PoW experience?

Ted Guy was attacking McCain's POW experience. Dan Luke referred to it in
this very thread. See

"> It is not yet publicly known just how much he collaborated and what
> kind of favors he received in return. Those in the U.S. government
> that do know are not talking."

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:cZftg.7837

>> Humm, that is an interesting take. Who else would be attacking Kerry, if
>> not the right?

> Those that wanted to set the record straight about what Kerry was saying
> about their service.
>
>> And to say it isn't political, is, wellll...
>>
> ...accurate.

Ludicrous. They waited until an election season to bring it up.

I'm sure you have plenty of examples of the left attacking Kerry's military
record, sending around faked photos of him sitting next to Fonda, etc.

-c

[zatatime]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:22:36 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:16:15 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::
>
>>What we need is a new group. Call it rec.aviation.politics. From the
>>amount of interest in discussing politics in THIS group, it ought to be a
>>big hit!
>
I would like to see the political conversations in their own group as
well.

z

[Skylune[_1_]]

I agree with Gatt, except that Kerry HIMSELF opened up his war record for
inspection when he ran a "I'm not W, and I am a Vietnam war veteran"
campaign. Remember the DNC?: "John Kerry: reporting for duty" was his
opening line.

He ran as a self-proclaimed war hero, even though he later admitted to
being a war criminal (look up his words on so called "Kill-zones"), and
then became an active Vietnam war protestor. By running this type of
campaign, he ****ed off many Vietnam vets.

Having never served (but coming from a military family that suffered many
casualties in WWII), I would never presume to judge what a man does in
combat. But, Kerry brought it on himself.

You never hear McCain bragging about being a war-hero. If anything, he is
reluctant to discuss it unlike John Kerry, "reporting for duty."

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:48:34 -0400, zatatime > wrote in
>:

> ... I would like to see the political conversations in their own group as
>well.

In an unmoderated group like r.a.p., it is virtually impossible to stop
thread drift.

Folks who feel comfortable with each other will make off-topic comments;
others will join the fray, and suddenly there is an outpouring of passion.

I doubt that the proposal is serious. Even if it was, I doubt that an
aviation/politics group would change human nature and prevent
thread drift in r.a.p.

YMMV.

Marty

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:48:34 -0400, zatatime > wrote in
>:
>
>> ... I would like to see the political conversations in their own group as
>>well.
>
>In an unmoderated group like r.a.p., it is virtually impossible to stop
>thread drift.

But thread drift isn't the only problem, it's threads that *start* as
political statements.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"You are all but subwidgets in a composite container whose logical tab
group I have registered the traversal order of. I can merely point at you
and your popup dialogue will be unmapped unless XmNautoUnmanage is False."

[Skylune[_1_]]

by (Paul Tomblin) Jul 13, 2006 at 02:33 PM



But thread drift isn't the only problem, it's threads that *start* as
political statements.


<<

This thread did NOT start as a political statement. Someone from the
Angry, Loony Left immediately turned it into such, reflexively engaging in
character assassination.

[alexy]

"Skylune" > wrote:

>by (Paul Tomblin) Jul 13, 2006 at 02:33 PM
>
>
>
>But thread drift isn't the only problem, it's threads that *start* as
>political statements.
>
>
><<
>
>This thread did NOT start as a political statement. Someone from the
>Angry, Loony Left immediately turned it into such, reflexively engaging in
>character assassination.

You are claiming that a thread titled "McCain in '08" was not a
political statement? Incredible!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:33:44 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote in >:

>In a previous article, said:

>>In an unmoderated group like r.a.p., it is virtually impossible to stop
>>thread drift.

>But thread drift isn't the only problem, it's threads that *start* as
>political statements.

I classify OT posting as "thread drift." I understand that this is
an enlargement of the concept. <shrug> Stuff happens, especially
when dealing with humans.

That said, if anyone is serious about pursuing a new group for
whatever reasons, a description of the newsgroup creation
process for the Big-8 is available at <http://www.big-8.org>.

If the whole thread was a joke, then I grin, a bit. :o)

Marty

[gatt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
>I agree with Gatt, except that Kerry HIMSELF opened up his war record for
>inspection when he ran a "I'm not W, and I am a Vietnam >war veteran"
>campaign. Remember the DNC?: "John Kerry: reporting for duty" was his
> opening line.

In that case I'd say it's fair so long as the interpretation of those
records is truthful by all parties, which is to say, the people claiming
he's a hero and the people claiming he's a fraud. If you make the claim, it
should be subject to review and verification.

> You never hear McCain bragging about being a war-hero.

It frequently takes Ex-POWs three or four decades to begin talking much
about their experience at all; many never do. In my experience with old
warriors I've come to the opinion that the harder they struggled, the less
inclined they are to discuss it.

-c

[Montblack[_1_]]

("alexy" wrote)
> You are claiming that a thread titled "McCain in '08" was not a political
> statement? Incredible!


I went back and reread De Loon De Loon's OP.

1. It was ALL about GA.

2. It was refreshing to see DL DL not quote the entire previous post - for a
change. (DL DL, we talked about this!) ...it helped that it was a fresh
thread. <g>

3. Owing to DL DL's consistent views on all things Boyer, the subject line:
McCain in '08 was hilarious.

4. McCain is a US Senator. AOPA "President" Boyer deals with politicians,
daily. Of course it was a political post - relating to GA.


Montblack

[Skylune[_1_]]

OK the title was political. The attached commentary was GA related. I
should have titled it McCain vs. the Destroyer.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:48:26 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>It was serious.

Then here's all you have to do:


http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation

Overview
Each of these steps is described in more detail below.

1. (optional) The proponent may start an informal discussion in
news.groups and in related groups about the proposed group.

2. The proponent submits a Request For Discussion (RFD) to
news.announce.newgroups.

3. Discussion of the RFD takes place primarily in news.groups.

4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

5. The board votes on the proposal.

6. If the proposal passes, it is implemented.


It sure look simple. To begin the process, start a message thread
with the subject: RFD rec.aviation.politics, and cross post it to
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.ifr, and new.groups.


Or, go right to it:

2. Request for Discussion (RFD)
The proponent submits his/her proposal to the newsgroup
news.announce.newgroups by posting to the group or by emailing the
proposal to . This
submission is known as a Request For Discussion, or RFD.

The RFD should be cross-posted to newsgroups whose readers might
be interested in or affected by the proposed group. It should also
be cross-posted to news.groups, and followups should be directed
there. (If you do not know how to set followups in your
newsreader, we will help you figure it out. The line that needs to
be included in the RFD header field is “Followup-to:
news.groups”.)

Some information is required in the RFD:

newsgroup name
Checkgroups file entry
whether the newsgroup will be moderated or unmoderated
if moderated, who the initial moderator(s) will be, including
their contact addresses

Some information is not required, but is strongly encouraged:

rationale
charter
moderation policy, if moderated

Other information which supports the creation of the newsgroup may
be included. For example, this could include:

traffic analysis
moderation site and software
Each of these items is discussed in greater detail here.

As discussion of the RFD progresses in news.groups, the proponent
should submit revised RFDs to news.announce.newgroups et al.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote
>
> I doubt that the proposal is serious. Even if it was, I doubt that an
> aviation/politics group would change human nature and prevent
> thread drift in r.a.p.

It was serious. In the current North Korea thread (thanks Jay, ya big
butthead) it was started as a political discussion, from the beginning.
That could have just as easily started over there. I think it has finally
died, thankfully.
--
Jim in NC

[Skylune[_1_]]

It frequently takes Ex-POWs three or four decades to begin talking much
about their experience at all; many never do. In my experience with old
warriors I've come to the opinion that the harder they struggled, the
less

inclined they are to discuss it.

-c

<<

Yes, or never. My dad was a vet, and briefly a POW in WWII. He died a
few years ago, and only once or twice did he ever discuss his war
experiences with me. He would not watch war films which he said glorified
combat and did not capture the horror. The only stories I heard were from
my mom, who would recall what little he told her.

When "Saving Private Ryan" came out a few years back, I got him to go see
it with me. He left within the first three minutes and said something to
the effect that there was no good reason to watch this film.

My guess is that McCain will not want to discuss his POW experiences ever.
If he starts to use them for political advantage (ala Kerry), I would
certainly not support the man.

Take care, Skylune out.

[Skylune[_1_]]

Thanks Montblack.

I broke my self-imposed ban on Rec GA when I read about the actual
exchange between Boyer and Senator McCain.

Glad you thought the "headline" was humourous, as I was trying to crack a
funny. Of course, making jokes about a guy like Boyer is pretty damned
easy, even for an amateur like me. There is just so damned much material
to work with there, and the man is dumb as a stick. His huge sense of
self-importance also helps.

Take care,
Da Loon, Da Loon.

[Skylune[_1_]]

Hey, Mont, look, they are hunting me down, in my adopted home state!!

http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Loons+to+be+counted+across+s tate+Saturday&articleId=5fc68d07-13eb-42af-8d28-88e9bf48212d

[gatt]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

> Yes, or never. My dad was a vet, and briefly a POW in WWII. He died a
> few years ago, and only once or twice did he ever discuss his war
> experiences with me. He would not watch war films which he said glorified
> combat and did not capture the horror. The only stories I heard were from
> my mom, who would recall what little he told her.

That's unfortunately too common. I've spoken with vets of my grandfather's
crew. Two loved telling the stories, possibly embellished a bit. The
copilot became angry when I suggested the notion that B-17s were ever NOT
olive drab, (the surviving '96th plane is bare aluminum), and the pilot won
the DFC, served in the Berlin Airlift, flew in Korea and Vietnam and after
he died, when I spoke to his daughter, I discovered he'd told me more about
his service on the phone one time while waiting for my grandfather to come
to the phone than he had ever told anybody in his family.

Similarly, I found out recently that my uncle is a retired Sgt. Major and he
won't even discuss which units he was in. Bronze stars from different wars,
PHs, we know he was captured by the Germans and escaped twice, and his wife
says he has two old footlockers filled with photos he took in Anzio or
somewhere, but his adult children have never seen them.

Sad, but, I figure they've earned that right if they choose to bury all of
it.

-c

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:

LD> 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

LD> 5. The board votes on the proposal.

What board is this?

About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
people reading and voting on the proposal?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Fry > said:
>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> LD> 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.
>
> LD> 5. The board votes on the proposal.
>
>What board is this?
>
>About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
>then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
>the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
>people reading and voting on the proposal?

The methodology changed after Tale retired.

The email voter system was fundamentally flawed because people were
stuffing the ballot box, so now there is a board that decides whether the
group's proponent has put forward a case that a group is needed or
deserved.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I complained that finding a solution to problems with Microsoft software
would be impossible if profanity was blocked, as few people can discuss
Microsoft's programs without using profanity." DarrylJ on alt.folklore.urban

[Bob Fry]

It's not just posts about politics in r.a.piloting, it's all posts not
related to *piloting*, that don't belong here. And a new newsgroup
won't fix those. For instance, the non-topical posts I see now are:

. [ 2: hewson ] http://www.boycottliberalism.com/
. [ 23: Barney Frank ] Airline Jobs
. [ 12: Marco Leon ] Interesting New Squadron Slated For Cannon AFB

r.a.p is what r.a.misc should be, but isn't. Why, I'm not sure. I
guess pilots want to post in a piloting news group.

[Owen Hiller[_2_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I'm pretty sure that gatt was reacting to the opponent's trashing of
> >> McCain's
> >> POW experience rather than any opponent disagreeing with any political
> >> position.
> >
> > Who was attacking McCain's PoW experience?
>
> Ted Guy was attacking McCain's POW experience. Dan Luke referred to it in
> this very thread. See

Ted Guy has been dead for over seven years. He was a PoW in Vietnam, and did
not use his experience to boost his own political career. Are you saying that
the late Ted Guy, is a liar?

[Owen Hiller[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:04:15 -0400, Owen Hiller
> > wrote in >::
>
> >
> >You are the man who brought up "Keating Five" in the thread.
>
> Yes. I provided an excerpt of a news article that indicated that
> McCain (the topic of this message thread) was a member of the Keating
> Five. To overlook that while assessing McCain's character would be an
> error of omission. Don't you agree?

Sure. What company did McCain keep in the Senate while protecting Keating
and his shady S&L deals? That is just as important, when assessing
character. If it makes you feel more on topic, at least one other Keating
5 senator was a pilot and astronaut. Were there any other pilots in the
group?

>
>
> >Follow your own advice first before you dictate to others.
>
> I'm not dictating anything to anyone. I just pointed out, that to
> discuss the other four members of the Keating Five would not shed any
> more light on McCain's character.

Fine. If you wanted to change the subject line you could have.

[Owen Hiller[_2_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>[i]
> >> Here's the bottom line. McCain was a POW. He gave many years of his
> >> life
> >> in service of his country. To attempt to diminish or devalue that for
> >> political leverage is absolutely beneath contempt. That's the way it is.
> >> Semper Fi.
> >
> > To attempt to use one's past service and sacrifices for today's political
> > leverage does great disservice to EVERYONE who has had sacrifice.
>
> To attempt to diminish one's past service and sacrifices for today's
> political leverage does great disservice to everyone who has had to
> sacrifice.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> "A man with a couple of years of active duty and the rest of his 37 year
> career spent in the Marine Corps Reserve. A man with one year in Vietnam as a staff intelligence
> offer. A man who's no more been in combat or is a war hero than I am. Even
> John Kerry has more combat experience than Jack Murtha."
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1655125/posts

*THAT* is your crappy example? I thought you were going to provide a news
article from a respected news source or something else credible. Instead you
provide a link to an anonymous bulletin board. At least I'll take your word
that you found a quote there, because the link appears to be dead too.

You brought up John Kerry. And if you are such a stickler for accuracy
regarding John Kerry, let's take a look at his political record. Please tell us
all of the bills that became law which he has spnosored in his over twenty (20)
years as a US Senator. Please tell us his attendance record while a member of
the very important US Senate Intelligence Committee. What were his primary
accomplishments as Mike Dukakis's Lieutenant Governor? Although Kerry
certainly didn't want to discuss his record as a politician, I'm sure somebody
interested in accuracy would not mind.


> For perspective:
>
> "In 1959, Murtha, then a captain, took command of the 34th Special Infantry
> Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves
> after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the
> Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer
> (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two
> Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the
> Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service
> Medal."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murtha#Early_life_and_military_service

That's great.

[Owen Hiller[_2_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> >I agree with Gatt, except that Kerry HIMSELF opened up his war record for
> >inspection when he ran a "I'm not W, and I am a Vietnam >war veteran"
> >campaign. Remember the DNC?: "John Kerry: reporting for duty" was his
> > opening line.
>
> In that case I'd say it's fair so long as the interpretation of those
> records is truthful by all parties, which is to say, the people claiming
> he's a hero and the people claiming he's a fraud. If you make the claim, it
> should be subject to review and verification.

Kerry realized that he didn't have an anthills' worth of accomplishments in 20
years of being a US Senator plus being a state lieutenant governor etc. The
only thing he could come up with was to play up his four (4) months in Vietnam.

[Jim Riley]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:53:58 -0700, Bob Fry >
wrote:
[i]
>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> LD> 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.
>
> LD> 5. The board votes on the proposal.
>
>What board is this?

The Big 8 Management Board (aka B8MB).

>About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
>then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
>the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
>people reading and voting on the proposal?

In October 2002, a trio consisting of Russ Allbery, Todd McComb, and
Piranha too over from David C. Lawrence (aka Tale) as moderators of
news.announce.newgroups (aka nan). In that role, they continued to
oversee the process that you had participated in 15 years ago. Brian
Edmonds later joined the 2002 group.

Last fall, they decided that the process simply wasn't working any
longer. Groups such as yours simply weren't able to get enough votes.
Other groups got enough votes only through ballot stuffing, which
produced groups with no one using them.

After some discussion, they (the moderators of nan) turned the
entire group creation process to a group of persons who have desiganted
themselves the Big 8 Management Board, who have devised a new process to
create new groups.

It is similar to the old process in that it begins with a discussion. It
differs in that the final decision is not made by a public vote, but by
the members of the B8MB.

The intent of the "vote" in the old process was to demonstrate that
there was enough interest in discussing the topic of the proposed group
such that the group would be successful. The B8MB most likely would
expect a level of interest in using the new group.

I just read back through the thread in the rec.aviation.* groups. I
question whether a rec.aviation.politics group would be successful
unless those persons who engaged in such discussion actually moved to
the new group. It may be that they simply want to discuss politics with
other pilots and other aviation enthusiasts. Pilots and enthusiasts who
are interested primarily in flying, but sometimes respond in the
political threads, might not be inclined to subscribe to a new group
devoted to political discussion.

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.
--
Jim Riley

[Owen Hiller[_2_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> news:JCdtg.7776
> >> I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.
> >>
> >
> > But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
> > Veterans for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message
> > wasn't political at all.
>
> Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
> specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.
>
> Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.

Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided to make Vietnam
an issue and brag about his service during his four months there. Many others
who were there during that time wished to tell their side of the story he was
publicizing on the national stage. (Kerry certainly had nothing else to talk
about, despite his 20 years as a US senator without really doing much at all
and not bothering to show up for many votes and Intelligence Committee
meetings). In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of
one vote. Kerry didn't even bother to show up. What a great job of
representing his constituents.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jim Riley" > wrote

> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
> more focused group.

Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Riley]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>
>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>> more focused group.
>
>Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
>enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

I thought that the proposal for the EAA group was totally disjoint from
that for rec.aviation.politics. Basically, someone who saw the
discussion about another new group, had the thought that if you were
going to create a group, why not make one that had something to do with
airplanes.

I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

>Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim Riley

[Sam Spade]

Jim Riley wrote:

>
> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>
So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

[Wayne Brown]

In news.groups Paul Tomblin > wrote:
> In a previous article, Bob Fry > said:
>>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>>
>> LD> 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.
>>
>> LD> 5. The board votes on the proposal.
>>
>>What board is this?
>>
>>About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
>>then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
>>the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
>>people reading and voting on the proposal?
>
> The methodology changed after Tale retired.
>
> The email voter system was fundamentally flawed because people were
> stuffing the ballot box, so now there is a board that decides whether the
> group's proponent has put forward a case that a group is needed or
> deserved.

No, the small group of jerks who took tale's place lied about the
system being "fundamentally flawed" as an excuse to abolish voting,
abandon their posts and turn over control to a larger group of jerks,
who now call themselves "the Board."

--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
| if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

[Brian Mailman]

Sam Spade wrote:

> Jim Riley wrote:
>
>>
>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>
> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

B/

[[email protected]]

Owen Hiller wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > news:JCdtg.7776
> > >> I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.
> > >>
> > >
> > > But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
> > > Veterans for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message
> > > wasn't political at all.
> >
> > Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
> > specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.
> >
> > Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.
>
> Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided to make Vietnam
> an issue and brag about his service during his four months there. Many others
> who were there during that time wished to tell their side of the story he was
> publicizing on the national stage.

He bragged about his service? Really? I must have missed that.

Many others were there? Where would that be -- Vietnam?

Their side of what story?

Doug Reese

> (Kerry certainly had nothing else to talk
> about, despite his 20 years as a US senator without really doing much at all
> and not bothering to show up for many votes and Intelligence Committee
> meetings). In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of
> one vote. Kerry didn't even bother to show up. What a great job of
> representing his constituents.

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

>> Ted Guy was attacking McCain's POW experience. Dan Luke referred to it
>> in
>> this very thread. See
>
> Ted Guy has been dead for over seven years. He was a PoW in Vietnam, and
> did
> not use his experience to boost his own political career. Are you saying
> that
> the late Ted Guy, is a liar?

I'm not qualified to say one way or the other. That's my point.

Ted Guy may have been a POW, and so his observations on the matter -IF
TRUTHFUL- have value. But everybody who used them for political purposes
(whether challenging directly or just 'letting people read for themselves')
is of questionable political integrity as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I'm not sure how "his own political career" has anything to do with
it. Conceivably he could have been working for somebody else. Not all
veterans are saints.

-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

> Kerry realized that he didn't have an anthills' worth of accomplishments
> in 20
> years of being a US Senator plus being a state lieutenant governor etc.
> The
> only thing he could come up with was to play up his four (4) months in
> Vietnam.

I don't claim to know what motivated Kerry to decide to do it 'cause I
wasn't in his campaign headquarters, either.

-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

> You brought up John Kerry. And if you are such a stickler for accuracy
> regarding John Kerry, let's take a look at his political record. Please
> tell us
> all of the bills

I don't work for Kerry, don't endorse Kerry, don't care about Kerry, don't
have any interest in arguing for or against Kerry and further removing the
discussion from the newsgroup topic.

If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
something, you're barking up the wrong tree.

> Please tell us his attendance record

What am I, his press secretary? Do your own homework. I'm not interested
in doing it for you, nor am I interested in Kerry's politics enough sk you
to explain your point.

Settle down, Beavis.

-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

>> Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election
>> year,
>> specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential
>> candidate.
>>
>> Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.
>
> Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided


HEY, SMART GUY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT JOHN KERRY DECIDED, ARE WE?
WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT WHAT JOHN KERRY DID?

>In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of one vote.
>Kerry didn't even bother to show up.

*shaking my head, baffled.* This is not a John Kerry debate, is it?

-c

[Skylune[_1_]]

That's unfortunately too common. I've spoken with vets of my grandfather's

crew. Two loved telling the stories, possibly embellished a bit. The
copilot became angry when I suggested the notion that B-17s were ever NOT

olive drab, (the surviving '96th plane is bare aluminum), and the pilot
won
the DFC, served in the Berlin Airlift, flew in Korea and Vietnam and
after

he died, when I spoke to his daughter, I discovered he'd told me more
about
his service on the phone one time while waiting for my grandfather to
come

to the phone than he had ever told anybody in his family.

Similarly, I found out recently that my uncle is a retired Sgt. Major and
he
won't even discuss which units he was in. Bronze stars from different
wars,
PHs, we know he was captured by the Germans and escaped twice, and his
wife
says he has two old footlockers filled with photos he took in Anzio or
somewhere, but his adult children have never seen them.

Sad, but, I figure they've earned that right if they choose to bury all
of

it.

-c

<<

Agreed again Gatt. Having never served myself, I nevertheless think it is
despicable that people have the audacity to criticize a soldier's actions
in combat. My dad was just a kid when he served, and I can't possibly
imagine the horror he witnessed and endured.

He earned the right to take whatever he witnessed and participated in,
privately, to his grave. Even though I only indirectly understand the
effects that combat can have on a man, I can do get upset with those that
try to use their military service for political opportunism, and would
never vote for such a person. McCain, to me, does not fit into that
category, from everything I've read about the man...

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote in >::

>>>
>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>
>Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

[Peter J Ross]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote in news.groups:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>>> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>>> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>>
>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>
> Sounds like that would belong in us.*

Troll. You're suggesting that the group should be created without a
long enough period of discussion.

PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ Tired of the same old posters in your
.._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, newsgroup? Why not visit news.groups.reviews
/ (`---'\ `-. and attract new talent by posting a review?
,-` _) (_, F_P (Please read the posting guidelines.)

[Brian Mailman]

Peter J Ross wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
> > wrote in news.groups:
>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Riley wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to
>>>> aviation is inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm
>>>> not mistaken, the 'R' in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by
>>>> the FAA.
>>>>
>>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>>
>> Sounds like that would belong in us.*
>
> Troll.

I'm not Dangerous(r) though. Just a bit tingly.\

> You're suggesting that the group should be created without a long
> enough period of discussion

There should be a better way to do it.

B/

[Daryl Hunt]

"Brian Mailman" > wrote in message
...
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>>> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>>> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>>
>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>
> Sounds like that would belong in us.*
>
> B/

Then it's a lost cause. USdotSplat is a bombed out open field these days.

[Henrietta K Thomas]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, Sam Spade
> wrote:

>Jim Riley wrote:
>
>>
>> I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>> inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>> in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>
>So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

I would object to that on the following grounds:

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.

3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.

If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
institution.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

[Henrietta K Thomas]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:31:13 GMT, in news.groups, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote in >::
>
>>>>
>>> So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>>
>>Sounds like that would belong in us.*
>
>So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
>rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
>military operations. :-)

That's why I suggest rec.aviation.regulations. It covers all
regulations at all levels, and is /not/ nation-specific.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

[Sam Spade]

Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, Sam Spade
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Riley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
>>>inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
>>>in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.
>>>
>>
>>So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate
>
>
> I would object to that on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.
>
> 2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.
>
> 3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.
>
> If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
> calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
> regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
> institution.
>
> Henrietta K. Thomas
> Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired
>

My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation? If so, there is nothing
recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:44:34 -0700, Sam Spade > wrote in
<6j6ug.782$_M.147@fed1read04>:

>>>So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

>My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
>Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation?

Yes.

The rec.* newsgroups are one of the Big-8. Here are
the eight hierarchies:

comp.* Computer topics, both hardware and software.
news.* Administration of the Big 8, as well as about Usenet and
Netnews in general, and related topics.
sci.* Science and technology.
humanities.* The humanities.
rec.* Recreational topics, including music, sports, games,
outdoor recreation, hobbies, crafts, ...
soc.* Socializing, society, and social issues.
talk.* Endless discussion, largely about politics.
misc.* A mixture of newsgroups that don’t fit the other
7 hierarchies. Many are about the practical aspects of everyday life.

>If so, there is nothing
>recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)

Heh heh. There's a lot of "regulatory combat" going on in news.groups
right now. :-O

Be that as it may, I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
the charter of a newsgroup.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[2Rowdy]

I was reading >, made
by the entity known as Henrietta K Thomas, that requests spam to be
sent to > and I became inspired,

> 1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

I like this.
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

Sig is being randomised, pls wait . . . .

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:30 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
>protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
>their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
>the charter of a newsgroup.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
mitigate the issue?

[Flyingmonk[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
>
> What we need is a new group. Call it rec.aviation.politics. From the
> amount of interest in discussing politics in THIS group, it ought to be a
> big hit! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

rec. "anything" is no longer available.

So I created this:

http://groups.google.com/groups/adult_confirm?_done=/group/Pilot-Politics%3Flnk%3Dli

Pilot Politics forum for us all to use.

Monk

[Brian Mailman]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
> of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
> post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
> mitigate the issue?

In alt.config, the regulars run into this issue on a rather frequent basis.

We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard" because
it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.

Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

B/

[Jose[_1_]]

> So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
> of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
> post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
> mitigate the issue?

I think he means that it would =not= mitigate the issue, in fact it may
make it worse (due to crossposting and multple posting).

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On 15 Jul 2006 12:25:41 -0700, Flyingmonk wrote:


>http://groups.google.com/groups/adult_confirm?_done=/group/Pilot-Politics%3Flnk%3Dli

whatever you did, you didn't do it on Usenet but on a website, and on
groups.google.com, one of the most spammer friendly web2news gateways I
know. Anyway: *Usenet*-users can't use this "group".

>Monk

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[2Rowdy]

I was reading >, made by the
entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
> and I became inspired,

> We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard"
> because it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.
>
> Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
> "now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to
> say the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the
> people posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

If there is sufficient offtopic it could justify a split towards a new
ontopic newsgroup.
So if soc.man is invaded with offtopic chitchat the ontopic posters
could unite, rationale and move towards soc.men.ontopic and if that's
invaded they could go towards soc.men.ontopic.ontopic
Who needs filters if the solution can be so simple.

f-up set
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup

Sig is being randomised, pls wait . . . .

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:05:50 -0700, Brian Mailman
> wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
>> of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
>> post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
>> mitigate the issue?
>
>In alt.config, the regulars run into this issue on a rather frequent basis.
>
>We call such formations "NIMBY" groups, or "not in my backyard" because
>it's someone wanting others to post in other groups.
>
>Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
>"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
>the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
>posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.
>
>B/

I see.

So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

[Matt Barrow[_2_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>>
>> Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided to make
>> Vietnam
>> an issue and brag about his service during his four months there. Many
>> others
>> who were there during that time wished to tell their side of the story he
>> was
>> publicizing on the national stage.
>
> He bragged about his service? Really? I must have missed that.

You must have missed his grand enterance at the Democratic National
convention, too.
>
> Many others were there? Where would that be -- Vietnam?
>
> Their side of what story?

Willful ignorance is most unbecoming.

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Kerry realized that he didn't have an anthills' worth of accomplishments
> > in 20
> > years of being a US Senator plus being a state lieutenant governor etc.
> > The
> > only thing he could come up with was to play up his four (4) months in
> > Vietnam.
>
> I don't claim to know what motivated Kerry to decide to do it 'cause I
> wasn't in his campaign headquarters, either.

Well put yourself in his handlers' shoes. He hadn't done anything remarkable
in 24+ years as a professional politician and was looking for a big
promotion. Voting attendance record? Not good. Intelligence committeee
attendance record? Deplorable. Voting record? All over the map. They
needed some angle to build the campaign on.

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You brought up John Kerry. And if you are such a stickler for accuracy
> > regarding John Kerry, let's take a look at his political record. Please
> > tell us
> > all of the bills
>
> I don't work for Kerry, don't endorse Kerry, don't care about Kerry, don't
> have any interest in arguing for or against Kerry and further removing the
> discussion from the newsgroup topic.
>
> If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
> something, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I am not. You wrote that the vietnam veterans who were criticizing Kerry's
story just happened to come out at the election time, therefore they only had
political motivations. I just pointed out that it was Kerry who brought up
Vietnam and started making his claims. Others merely wanted to rebut the claims
he was making in the national forum.

>
>
> > Please tell us his attendance record
>
> What am I, his press secretary? Do your own homework. I'm not interested
> in doing it for you, nor am I interested in Kerry's politics enough sk you
> to explain your point.

A moment ago you were claiming that 'someone' was attempting to diminish
Congressman Murtha's past service and sacrifices, but your only example of this
was an anonymous post on somebody's bulletin board. Or maybe not even that
because your link does not work.

>
>
> Settle down, Beavis.

If you need to resort to name calling, go right ahead.

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Ted Guy was attacking McCain's POW experience. Dan Luke referred to it
> >> in
> >> this very thread. See
> >
> > Ted Guy has been dead for over seven years. He was a PoW in Vietnam, and
> > did
> > not use his experience to boost his own political career. Are you saying
> > that
> > the late Ted Guy, is a liar?
>
> I'm not qualified to say one way or the other. That's my point.
>
> Ted Guy may have been a POW, and so his observations on the matter -IF
> TRUTHFUL- have value. But everybody who used them for political purposes
> (whether challenging directly or just 'letting people read for themselves')
> is of questionable political integrity as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Also, I'm not sure how "his own political career" has anything to do with
> it. Conceivably he could have been working for somebody else. Not all
> veterans are saints.

That's my point. Being a veteran is extremely honorable, but not all veterans
are honorable, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make you a better
politician, or meat cutter, etc.

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> news:cZftg.7837
>
> >> Humm, that is an interesting take. Who else would be attacking Kerry, if
> >> not the right?
>
> > Those that wanted to set the record straight about what Kerry was saying
> > about their service.
> >
> >> And to say it isn't political, is, wellll...
> >>
> > ...accurate.
>
> Ludicrous. They waited until an election season to bring it up.

Again, look at the time line. Kerry was who "bought it up." He pretty much made
his Vietnam exploits his primary qualification for becoming President. He
didn't want to talk about his record in the Senate, as a politician, as
Dukakis's lieutenant governor, his political record, etc. He wanted to talk
about his claims of Vietnam, since he did spend four (4) months in the theatre.
Upon hearing his claims, others who had been there wished to tell their side of
the story.


>
>
> I'm sure you have plenty of examples of the left attacking Kerry's military
> record, sending around faked photos of him sitting next to Fonda, etc.

Don't stereotype "the right" or "the left" as if one looney move by one
individual represents an entire class.

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

wrote:

> Owen Hiller wrote:
> > gatt wrote:
> >
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > > news:JCdtg.7776
> > > >> I remember some of the attacks on Kerry, but not the others.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > But do you remember any by "the right"? I remember the Swift Boat
> > > > Veterans for Truth, but they weren't a right wing group, their message
> > > > wasn't political at all.
> > >
> > > Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
> > > specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.
> > >
> > > Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.
> >
> > Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided to make Vietnam
> > an issue and brag about his service during his four months there. Many others
> > who were there during that time wished to tell their side of the story he was
> > publicizing on the national stage.
>
> He bragged about his service? Really? I must have missed that.

Sure must have missed 2004. "I am John Kerry , reporting for duty" and then he
proceeded to talk about Vietnam. The usual media partners of his party (NY Times,
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc) were very fond of
pointing it out too, so it was hard to miss.


>
>
> Many others were there? Where would that be -- Vietnam?

I referenced Vietnam above.

>
>
> Their side of what story?

The claims that Kerry was making in 2004.

>
>
> Doug Reese
>
> > (Kerry certainly had nothing else to talk
> > about, despite his 20 years as a US senator without really doing much at all
> > and not bothering to show up for many votes and Intelligence Committee
> > meetings). In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of
> > one vote. Kerry didn't even bother to show up. What a great job of
> > representing his constituents.

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election
> >> year,
> >> specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential
> >> candidate.
> >>
> >> Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.
> >
> > Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided
>
> HEY, SMART GUY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT JOHN KERRY DECIDED, ARE WE?
> WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT WHAT JOHN KERRY DID?

Because you were interested in talking about what critics of Kerry were saying.
To understand their motivation of setting the record straight as they saw it, it
is important to know what Kerry did first. There is no need to get excited and
shout.

>
>
> >In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of one vote.
> >Kerry didn't even bother to show up.
>
> *shaking my head, baffled.* This is not a John Kerry debate, is it?

To unbaffle yourself, reread what you wrote:

"> Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election year,
> specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential candidate.
>
> Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh."

Again that was merely a direct response to Kerry's claims.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:36:52 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:03:30 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>>I doubt that creation of a new newsgroup will
>>protect r.a.p. from off-topic material. People like to talk with
>>their friends about all kinds of things, even if the topics don't fit into
>>the charter of a newsgroup.

>So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying, that because some members
>of a newsgroup's readership disrespect the newsgroup's charter, and
>post off-topic articles, there is no reason to make an attempt to
>mitigate the issue?

If the problem with your engine is a bad magneto, doing
an oil change won't fix the problem.

In my view, the problem with off-topic posting is caused
by human nature, such as it is.

Creating a new newsgroup won't change human nature.
Some people go off-topic because they feel comfortable
with their friends; others want to have an audience for their
performance art. I don't think either personality type can
be siphoned off into a new newsgroup.

YMMV.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Jose[_1_]]

> So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
> in rec.aviation.piloting.

Yes, at least to the extent that politics affects aviation, which is
quite a bit.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Brian Mailman]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:05:50 -0700, Brian Mailman
> > wrote in >::

>>Experience shows that NIMBY groups don't work, and netcopping to say
>>"now you have a group to post that in, go there" is frustrating to say
>>the least. The only way to get a NIMBY to work is to have the people
>>posting "offtopic" *want* to form their own group.

> So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
> in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
> posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
> 'OT', it would facilitate filtering.

You can ask them to do that, sure.

> On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
> rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
> pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?

Ask them? Run a straw poll.

Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.

B/

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:30:54 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>
>
>> > So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
>> > in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
>> > posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
>> > 'OT', it would facilitate filtering.
>>
>> You can ask them to do that, sure.
>>
>> > On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
>> > rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
>> > pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?
>>
>> Ask them? Run a straw poll.
>>
>> Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>We have all kinds of codes for filtering in this and other rec.aviation.*
>groups, like ZZZ for Jim Campbell, or JJJ for Juan Jimenez, FS for selling,
>and of course, OT for all kinds of stuff that is not on topic.
>
>I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:
>
>POL: bla bla bla, ect
>
>That will allow people that don't mind the political crap that is related to
>flying, and still allow the people that object to filter it.
>
>What say ye all?

Okeydoke. That's a creative solution. At least someone is thinking.

Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > So it looks like political discussion is destined to remain a fixture
> > in rec.aviation.piloting. I suppose, if original message thread
> > posters would be curious enough to preface their Subject lines with
> > 'OT', it would facilitate filtering.
>
> You can ask them to do that, sure.
>
> > On the other hand, I wonder how many of the current
> > rec.aviation.piloting readership might truly desire a forum where
> > pilots could discuss political aviation issues with their fellows?
>
> Ask them? Run a straw poll.
>
> Still sounds like a NIMBY act, though.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We have all kinds of codes for filtering in this and other rec.aviation.*
groups, like ZZZ for Jim Campbell, or JJJ for Juan Jimenez, FS for selling,
and of course, OT for all kinds of stuff that is not on topic.

I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:

POL: bla bla bla, ect

That will allow people that don't mind the political crap that is related to
flying, and still allow the people that object to filter it.

What say ye all?
--
Jim in NC

[Jose[_1_]]

> I propose we make a new filter aid, which we precede the subject line with:
>
> POL: bla bla bla, ect

Good idea... and when replying to an on-topic post with a reply that
contains political stuff, prepend POL: to the existing subject line.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:27:04 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>Good idea... and when replying to an on-topic post with a reply that
>contains political stuff, prepend POL: to the existing subject line.

Would you start a new message thread like that even if the political
content were on-topic?

[Flyingmonk[_1_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2006 12:25:41 -0700, Flyingmonk wrote:
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/groups/adult_confirm?_done=/group/Pilot-Politics%3Flnk%3Dli
>
> whatever you did, you didn't do it on Usenet but on a website, and on
> groups.google.com, one of the most spammer friendly web2news gateways I
> know. Anyway: *Usenet*-users can't use this "group".

I don't think anyone here is really sincere about wanting a separate
forum, but I thought I'd set one up anyways. It was simple emnough.

The email address to send posts via email is:



Monk

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:41:37 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote in
>::

>whatever you did, you didn't do it on Usenet but on a website, and on
>groups.google.com, one of the most spammer friendly web2news gateways I
>know. Anyway: *Usenet*-users can't use this "group".

Brian has no clue about the difference between the two. Oh well...

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Good idea... and when replying to an on-topic post with a reply that
>>contains political stuff, prepend POL: to the existing subject line.
>
> Would you start a new message thread like that even if the political
> content were on-topic?

Yes. I propose retaining the rest of the subject line. Of course it's
a judgement call as to how political it has to be to warrant POL, but
that's the way I'd start out... remember replies to that message may
well expound on the politital part rather than the aviation part; that's
proabaly the test to use.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:45:43 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

> ... Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
>charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?

Periodic notices, cheerleading, and good example.

There is no formal mechanism for changing group charters. The
one that goes on file at the time of the group's creation stays on
file.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:01:51 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:45:43 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:
>
>> ... Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
>>charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?
>
>Periodic notices,

How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

>cheerleading,

You're referring to the readership politely informing the author, of
the offending political article sans 'POL' prepended in the Subject
header, of the convention of flagging political content in
rec.aviation.piloting?

>and good example.

That can only be accomplished by the informed.

>There is no formal mechanism for changing group charters. The
>one that goes on file at the time of the group's creation stays on
>file.

Oh well...

[Flyingmonk[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:41:37 +0200, Martin Hotze
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >whatever you did, you didn't do it on Usenet but on a website, and on
> >groups.google.com, one of the most spammer friendly web2news gateways I
> >know. Anyway: *Usenet*-users can't use this "group".
>
> Brian has no clue about the difference between the two. Oh well...

Oh please enlighten me oh great one... <g>

Monk

[Jose[_1_]]

>>and good example.
>
>
> That can only be accomplished by the informed.
>
Well, we're all informed now. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On 16 Jul 2006 18:49:30 -0700, "Flyingmonk" >
wrote in om>::

>Oh please enlighten me oh great one... <g>

Back in the '80's most news reading clients imposed a mandatory visit
to the news.newusers newsgroup upon their first time use, thus new
users had an opportunity to enlighten themselves about Usenet before
using it.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:59:22 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

>>Periodic notices,

>How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

Create a FAQ.

Post it periodically.

It only has persuasive value. Anyone can create a FAQ.

Right now the automated FAQ services seem to be in
disarray. If you've got a unix guru to put it on a cron, great.
If not, just post it by hand.

>>cheerleading,

>You're referring to the readership politely informing the author, of
>the offending political article sans 'POL' prepended in the Subject
>header, of the convention of flagging political content in
>rec.aviation.piloting?

I don't think scolding does much good. Thank the folks who
use it and disregard--even killfile--the rest.

>>and good example.

>That can only be accomplished by the informed.

And the benevolent.

Many malevolent people are very well informed.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:10:38 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>>>and good example.
>>
>>
>> That can only be accomplished by the informed.
>>
>Well, we're all informed now. :)
>

Actually, only those who have read the article are informed. That is
a small subset of the current readership of rec.aviation.piloting, and
completely overlooks those who have yet to subscribe to
rec.aviation.piloting in the future.

I believe the necessity of a periodic posting of guidelines is
beneficial.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Well, we're all informed now. :)
> Actually, only those who have read the article are informed.
>
> I believe the necessity of a periodic posting of guidelines is
> beneficial.

That's the "we" I was referring to. And it does not preclude periodic
posting of the FAQs, which would include this (and the other
abbreviations, some of which I was not aware.)

Maybe we should prepend "PED" for pedantry. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:02:33 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>>> Well, we're all informed now. :)
>> Actually, only those who have read the article are informed.
>>
>> I believe the necessity of a periodic posting of guidelines is
>> beneficial.
>
>That's the "we" I was referring to.

Yes. But the fact that we have read it doesn't in any way inform
other readers, so it's not very meaningful.

>And it does not preclude periodic
>posting of the FAQs, which would include this (and the other
>abbreviations, some of which I was not aware.)

So who will make the periodic FAQ postings?

Who will create the FAQ?

(Sheesh, I feel like Henny Penny)

>Maybe we should prepend "PED" for pedantry. :)

Programmers who fail to learn the art of pedantry struggle with a
plethora of bugs. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:01:27 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::

>automated FAQ services

I wasn't able to find any such services.

What would the UNIX cron command look like?

0 0 1 * * inews -h < faq-file.txt

The faq-file.txt would contain the FAQ complete with Usenet message
headers.

inews man page:
http://www.int-evry.fr/s2ia/user/doutrele/news/man/inews.1.html

[Jose[_1_]]

>>That's the "we" I was referring to.
>
> Yes. But the fact that we have read it doesn't in any way inform
> other readers, so it's not very meaningful.

1: The "other readers" are not part of the "we", until they read it, at
which time they become part of the "we" and also become informed, at the
same time.

2: Actually, the fact that we have read it, if we act on it, =does=
inform other readers... people who see the POL prepend (if it happens
often enough) will make the connection even absent explicit direction.

> So who will make the periodic FAQ postings?

Adopting the convention does not require FAQ postings. We just start
doing it.

> Programmers who fail to learn the art of pedantry struggle with a
> plethora of bugs. :-)

Nah. Only their customers do. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:54:53 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>
>Adopting the convention does not require FAQ postings. We just start
>doing it.

What an optimist.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Adopting the convention does not require FAQ postings. We just start
>>doing it.
>
> What an optimist.

Well, actually since we started discussing this, there has been a
significant decrease in the number of political postings.

Sometimes Murphey does fall asleep.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:43:00 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

>>automated FAQ services

>I wasn't able to find any such services.

There was an automated FAQ server at MIT. Latest reports say that
it seems to be broken:

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/

I believe it was supposed to feed into the Internet FAQ Archives:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/

>What would the UNIX cron command look like?
>
> 0 0 1 * * inews -h < faq-file.txt

>The faq-file.txt would contain the FAQ complete with Usenet message
>headers.

Looks good to me. I haven't set up anything like this myself.

>inews man page:
>http://www.int-evry.fr/s2ia/user/doutrele/news/man/inews.1.html

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:25:32 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> But I find reading their archive of Usenet article indispensable

I still miss Dejanews. It didn't go back as far (but then neither did
Google at first), but I found the query language easier to use.
Deajagoogle also makes it harder to get the proper threaded display, and
it seems to skip some headers (ie. Path).

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:25:26 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

> Back in the '80's most news reading clients imposed a mandatory visit to
> the news.newusers newsgroup upon their first time use, thus new users had
> an opportunity to enlighten themselves about Usenet before using it.

This was pre-HTTP, recall, so anyone reading USENET was using a USENET
client (with the odd outlier using a news/mail gateway). Nowadays, people
don't need to use those clients. Thus, many don't even realize there is
such an entity as USENET operating behind the scenes of their "aviation
web forum with the funny name with lots of dots".

- Andrew

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:19:58 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:

>While I wasn't able to find a FAQ server at that URL, but I did find
>these documents in rec.aviation.answers (rec.aviation.piloting doesn't
>seem to exist on rtfm.mit.edu):

You found the FAQ server.

What you didn't find was a method of creating new FAQs or
updating old ones.

That's why people are saying it's broken.

Geoff Peck, who seems to have been a major player in
the rec.aviation.* hierarchy, seems to be MIA since
1999. That's the last time his web site was updated.

The last usenet post from seems to
have been in July of 2002.

Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB), such as it is.
The B8MB is a work in progress.
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

> That's my point. Being a veteran is extremely honorable, but not all
> veterans
> are honorable, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make you a better
> politician, or meat cutter, etc.

That doesn't give people license to falsify, distort or question that
person's demonstrated military career. Ever.

-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

>> I don't claim to know what motivated Kerry to decide to do it 'cause I
>> wasn't in his campaign headquarters, either.
>
> Well put yourself in his handlers' shoes.

That requires experience, a paycheck, and half a damn to give about John
Kerry in the first place, none of which I possess.


-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

>> If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
>> something, you're barking up the wrong tree.
>
> I am not. You wrote that the vietnam veterans who were criticizing
> Kerry's story just happened to come out at the election time, therefore
> they >only had political motivations. I just pointed out that it was
> Kerry who brought up Vietnam

Ah. And what was SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH doing before Kerry brought
up his Swift Boat story? Were they out dutifully purging society of swift
boat frauds?

> A moment ago you were claiming that 'someone' was attempting to diminish
> Congressman Murtha's past service and sacrifices,

A W F E R P E T E S A K E ! ! !
http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200601/SPE20060113a.html

"Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question"


Not good enough? ANN COULTER! http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020002

And unlike Murtha, who refuses to release his medical records showing he
was entitled to his two Purple Hearts, we know what North did. (These
Democrat military veterans are hardly shrinking violets when it comes to
citing their medals, but they get awfully squeamish when pressed for
details.)

A May 12, 2002, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article





http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1132727456.shtml Congresswoman Who
Called John Murtha Coward Apologizes On TV

>but your only example of this was an anonymous post on somebody's bulletin
>board. Or maybe not even that because your link does not work.


Need more?
"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious
wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told
Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active
duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in
1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment
intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.

Murtha and Bailey, once allies, were forced to run against each other in a
Democratic congressional primary in 1982 following redistricting. Murtha won
the election.

Murtha has, in the past, publicly dismissed any questions about whether he
deserved his two Purple Hearts, noting during his 1994 congressional
campaign that "I am proud of my service in Vietnam."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/the-swiftboating-of-john-_b_24751.html



> If you need to resort to name calling, go right ahead.

It might come down to that if you can't accept facts. If you would like,
I'll find several posts demonstrating that there's a war on in the middle
east and other current events covered all over the mainstream media.

-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

>> Ludicrous. They waited until an election season to bring it up.
>
> Again, look at the time line. Kerry was who "bought it up." He pretty
> much made
> his Vietnam exploits his primary qualification for becoming President.

And before that, the Swift Boat Vets were running around the country
challenging every other politicians' military records and outting frauds, or
what?

Did they delve into Bush Sr's records? Authenticate any other veterans?
What were they doing before the election season when one candidate claimed
to have been decorated for action of a swift boat?

-c

[gatt]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...

>> >In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of one
>> >vote.
>> >Kerry didn't even bother to show up.
>>
>> *shaking my head, baffled.* This is not a John Kerry debate, is it?
>
> To unbaffle yourself, reread what you wrote:

> "> Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election
> year, specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential
> candidate."

> Again that was merely a direct response to Kerry's claims.

Which has nothing to do with whether Kerry bothered to show up for a bill to
extend unemployment in 2004, does it?

I told you I'm not interesting in talking Kerry politics, and I was polite
about it. Now, I'm not. So GET LOST! SCRAM!

NO, WE WILL NOT REFUND THE COST OF YOUR TICKET. YOU'RE LUCKY WE'RE GIVING
YOU YOUR SUITCASE BACK.

Or, in the words of David Space, BUH-BYE.
-C

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>I don't claim to know what motivated Kerry to decide to do it 'cause I
>>> wasn't in his campaign headquarters, either.
>> Well put yourself in his handlers' shoes.
>
> That requires experience, a paycheck, and half a damn to give about John
> Kerry in the first place, none of which I possess.

Perfect spot for the POL prepend. I'll start it, even though I have
nothing to say politically.

:) Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:45:39 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote in >::

>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:25:32 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> But I find reading their archive of Usenet article indispensable
>
>I still miss Dejanews.

Definitely.

>It didn't go back as far (but then neither did
>Google at first), but I found the query language easier to use.

I guess the spam-bot e-mail address harvesters have necessitated a lot
of changes too, but I liked DejaNews the best, because you could
search on IP addresses and other article headers.

>
>Deajagoogle also makes it harder to get the proper threaded display, and
>it seems to skip some headers (ie. Path).

Right. The original GoogleGroups would show the number of lines for
each article, left the 'RE:' in the subject lines, and was far
superior to the current GoogleGroups interface. But, hey, we've got
targeted advertising now. :-(

I really wish program developers would take the time to consult with
actual users of the data before imposing their dogma on users. It's
like Microsoft's decision to omit the mandatory visit to news.newusers
newsgroup from Outlook's news-reader. That convention was part of
every UNIX news-reader I ever saw, but Microsoft just dumped it
without consideration of the consequences. Oh well, monopolies don't
need to be considerate, and provide what the marketplace wants. When
you're the only game in town, you don't have to listen to anyone.

[Dave Ratcliffe]

In >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:01:51 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
> wrote in
>::
>
>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:45:43 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote in
>:
>>
>>> ... Now how do you broadcast that convention? Do you amend the newsgroup
>>>charter, or periodically post a notice, or ...?
>>
>>Periodic notices,
>
>How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

Nah. 'cron' is your friend. 'at' is just the human front end for it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:57:15 -0400, Dave Ratcliffe
> wrote in
>::

>In >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>>How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>>sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.
>
>Nah. 'cron' is your friend. 'at' is just the human front end for it.

True, but the point is, who has a UNIX server with inews running on it
and is willing to provide the FAQ posting service? I'd even settle
for a mail-to-news gateway (in lieu of inews). I have cron access on
a UNIX server, but there's no inews on it.

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...

>> That requires experience, a paycheck, and half a damn to give about John
>> Kerry in the first place, none of which I possess.
>
> Perfect spot for the POL prepend. I'll start it, even though I have
> nothing to say politically.

Well, sir, you're leading by example anyhow and I commend you for it!

-c

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "Morgans" == Morgans > writes:

Morgans> "gatt" > wrote various
Morgans> political blatherings.

Morgans> How about using the POL: in the subject line?

How about followups to r.a.misc?

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote various plitical blatherings.

How about using the POL in the subject, Owen?

[Morgans[_3_]]

"gatt" > wrote various political blatherings.

How about using the POL: in the subject line?

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Ludicrous. They waited until an election season to bring it up.
> >
> > Again, look at the time line. Kerry was who "bought it up." He pretty
> > much made
> > his Vietnam exploits his primary qualification for becoming President.
>
> And before that, the Swift Boat Vets were running around the country
> challenging every other politicians' military records and outting frauds, or
> what?
>
> Did they delve into Bush Sr's records? Authenticate any other veterans?

Which of these veterans were making claims to boost their political aspirations
and obtain higher office?

>
> What were they doing before the election season when one candidate claimed
> to have been decorated for action of a swift boat?

You missed the point again. Bush Sr wasn't going around with claims about what
happened in Vietnam. Kerry was, and the other veterans had a different version
of THAT story.

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> >In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of one
> >> >vote.
> >> >Kerry didn't even bother to show up.
> >>
> >> *shaking my head, baffled.* This is not a John Kerry debate, is it?
> >
> > To unbaffle yourself, reread what you wrote:
>
> > "> Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election
> > year, specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential
> > candidate."
>
> > Again that was merely a direct response to Kerry's claims.
>
> Which has nothing to do with whether Kerry bothered to show up for a bill to
> extend unemployment in 2004, does it?

It has everything to do with why the veterans were rebutting the claims. The
timeline was a candidate for President was making claims about his own military
service. After this happened, other veterans who were in theatre at the time
strongly disagreed with said claims came forward with their own version of
events.

>
>
> I told you I'm not interesting in talking Kerry politics, and I was polite
> about it. Now, I'm not. So GET LOST! SCRAM!

If you're not interested in talking about anything, I'm not forcing you to talk
at all. You also seemed very interested in the swift boat veterans, and I'm
explaining the timeline to you. Get lost, indeed :-)

>
>
> NO, WE WILL NOT REFUND THE COST OF YOUR TICKET. YOU'RE LUCKY WE'RE GIVING
> YOU YOUR SUITCASE BACK.

Seek help. "Nothing to do" indeed, lol :)

>
>
> Or, in the words of David Space, BUH-BYE.

David Space?

:-)

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > We admire Kerry's four (4) months that he served in theatre in Vietnam.
> > But
> > that is not relevant to his political positions today,
>
> Here's another.
>
> "I'm wondering if McCain's been taken prisoner and being held as a POW by
> the Kerry camp, in the Kerry Hilton, somewhere in the basement of the
> C." -Rush Limbaugh http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100006
>
> Rush Limbaugh's service to America isn't worth two cold turds in a toilet
> bowl. For him to make a joke about a POW is outrageous. Limbaugh never
> looked into the eyes of a loved one struggling with some unimaginable
> rememberance coming at him from the dark place where old warriors attempt to
> contain such things.
>
> If he did, he would understand that making a joke about somebody's Prisoner
> of War experience is rather like making a joke about a warrior watching his
> comrades die.

Ok, now you want to have a discussion about Rush Limbaugh. Why introduce him
into the discussion? Since you brought it up, can you please provide the full
context of that quote instead of a one sentence snippet? Also, how do you know
everywhere somebody's eyes looked at every time during their life, which you
would need to know in order to make that statement?

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
> >> something, you're barking up the wrong tree.
> >
> > I am not. You wrote that the vietnam veterans who were criticizing
> > Kerry's story just happened to come out at the election time, therefore
> > they >only had political motivations. I just pointed out that it was
> > Kerry who brought up Vietnam
>
> Ah. And what was SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH doing before Kerry brought
> up his Swift Boat story? Were they out dutifully purging society of swift
> boat frauds?

What "frauds" are you referring to? Please describe. And who was using said frauds
you allege to obtain higher office?


>
>
> > A moment ago you were claiming that 'someone' was attempting to diminish
> > Congressman Murtha's past service and sacrifices,
>
> A W F E R P E T E S A K E ! ! !
> http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200601/SPE20060113a.html
>
> "Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question"
>
> Not good enough? ANN COULTER! http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020002
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/the-swiftboating-of-john-_b_24751.html
>
> > If you need to resort to name calling, go right ahead.
>
> It might come down to that if you can't accept facts. If you would like,
> I'll find several posts demonstrating that there's a war on in the middle
> east and other current events covered all over the mainstream media.

Hey, I wasn't the one who couldn't figure out why the swift boat veterans would want
to rebut claims AFTER they were made :) Ann Coulter makes a living by making
outrageous statements, so what? Huffington is a liberal axe-grinder, hardly an
unbiased source either. And as for your moderate voice article, you did note the
word "apoligize," right?

:-)

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I don't claim to know what motivated Kerry to decide to do it 'cause I
> >> wasn't in his campaign headquarters, either.
> >
> > Well put yourself in his handlers' shoes.
>
> That requires experience, a paycheck, and half a damn to give about John
> Kerry in the first place, none of which I possess.

Which of course completely explains why you can't figure out why people were
rebutting his claims he made about his four months of service in Vietnam.

[Owen Hiller[_3_]]

gatt wrote:

> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > That's my point. Being a veteran is extremely honorable, but not all
> > veterans
> > are honorable, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make you a better
> > politician, or meat cutter, etc.
>
> That doesn't give people license to falsify, distort or question that
> person's demonstrated military career. Ever.

Who was falsifying? Please explain.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote

> Assuming "POL" some sort of shorthand for politics, why would you need
> that when the subject is "McCain in '08?" Just curious.

When you look at all of the new posts that come in, it shows up. Sure, I
could write a new filter just for the current thread, but tomorrow it will
be another thread that pops up, and a new filter to write. You put POL for
politics in the subject line and I, and all of the other people (that are
too numerous to mention) that are sick of seeing politics taking over
threads, don't have to read the vile filth and lies that nobody will refrain
from posting.

You really never have seen this kind of thing before, have you?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote
>
> I haven't seen the new convention before. When did it start?

It has been discussed the last couple days. Where have you been?
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack[_1_]]

(Morgans" wrote)
> Be courtious, and play along. It does not take very long to do.


Hey, you didn't include POL in the subject line! <g>


Montblack
Alexander Graham Bellski?
The first telephone POL.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Owen Hiller" > wrote

> Right. So how should we manage posts about subject line conventions?

When you reply to a post, if POL is not yet in the subject line, navigate
your cursor up to the subject line location, and after the Re: put in "POL"
and you are done, and can go back to blasting whoever wants to play with
you.

Some other filter keywords are OT for off topic. FS for for sale, for a
personally owned aviation item, only. Some disagree with this being
allowable... In some aviation groups, ZZZ for Zoom (Jim Campbell) JJJ for
Juan Jimienez, one of zoom's lackeys. I can';t remember if we added REL for
religion, or not.

Thanks for your future cooperation.
--
Jim in NC

[Flyingmonk[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Some other filter keywords are OT for off topic. FS for for sale, for a
> personally owned aviation item, only. Some disagree with this being
> allowable... In some aviation groups, ZZZ for Zoom (Jim Campbell) JJJ for
> Juan Jimienez, one of zoom's lackeys. I can';t remember if we added REL for
> religion, or not.
>
> Thanks for your future cooperation.
> --
> Jim in NC

Don't forget "jumpingpixels". <g>

Monk

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Montblack" > wrote >
>
> Hey, you didn't include POL in the subject line! <g>

So where in my post did you see me mention any opinions on politics?

Gottcha right back! <VBG>.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote

> Don't forget "jumpingpixels". <g>

Yeah, I forgot him. What could we use to warn of that guy.... I think
I've got it!

IDIOT <G>
--
Jim in NC

[Tim Skirvin]

Larry Dighera > writes:

> How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
> sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.

http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/scripts/faqpost

That's what I use.

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:05:38 -0500, (Tim
Skirvin) wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera > writes:
>
>> How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>> sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.
>
> http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/scripts/faqpost
>
> That's what I use.
>
> - Tim Skirvin )
> Chair, Big-8 Management Board

Many thinks, Mr. Skirvin. I had overlooked the necessity to generate
a unique Expires: header for each instance of posting, and some other
items.

I notice that one of the main features of your script is the use of
PGP signature. Is this a requirement for FAQ document articles? There
is also mention of possible difficulties if some of the other message
header fields are omitted or incorrectly formatted. Is there
documentation describing the requirements for FAQ posting someplace?

[[email protected]]

Owen Hiller wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>
> > "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >> If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
> > >> something, you're barking up the wrong tree.
> > >
> > > I am not. You wrote that the vietnam veterans who were criticizing
> > > Kerry's story just happened to come out at the election time, therefore
> > > they >only had political motivations. I just pointed out that it was
> > > Kerry who brought up Vietnam
> >
> > Ah. And what was SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH doing before Kerry brought
> > up his Swift Boat story? Were they out dutifully purging society of swift
> > boat frauds?
>
> What "frauds" are you referring to? Please describe. And who was using said frauds
> you allege to obtain higher office?
>
>
> >
> >
> > > A moment ago you were claiming that 'someone' was attempting to diminish
> > > Congressman Murtha's past service and sacrifices,
> >
> > A W F E R P E T E S A K E ! ! !
> > http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200601/SPE20060113a.html
> >
> > "Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question"
> >
> > Not good enough? ANN COULTER! http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020002
> >
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/the-swiftboating-of-john-_b_24751.html
> >
> > > If you need to resort to name calling, go right ahead.
> >
> > It might come down to that if you can't accept facts. If you would like,
> > I'll find several posts demonstrating that there's a war on in the middle
> > east and other current events covered all over the mainstream media.
>
> Hey, I wasn't the one who couldn't figure out why the swift boat veterans would want
> to rebut claims AFTER they were made :) Ann Coulter makes a living by making
> outrageous statements, so what? Huffington is a liberal axe-grinder, hardly an
> unbiased source either. And as for your moderate voice article, you did note the
> word "apoligize," right?

The bottom line is that the SBV"t" attacked Kerry's service in Vietnam
in a manner that could be described as dishonest. The fact is that the
overwhelming majority of guys who were with Kerry (on his boat) or near
Kerry (on other boats) in combat, have no problem with Kerry's medals
and/or service in Vietnam.

The SBV"t" misrepresented the facts. They omitted facts when it suited
then, and they spun wildly.

Actually, describing it as dishonest would be an understatement.

Doug Reese

> :-)

[Tim Skirvin]

Larry Dighera > writes:

>>> How do you propose to assure that periodic notices are posted? That
>>> sounds like a job for the UNIX 'at' command.
>> http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/scripts/faqpost
>> That's what I use.

> I notice that one of the main features of your script is the use of
> PGP signature. Is this a requirement for FAQ document articles?

It is not; but all of the moderated groups that I run require PGP
signatures for anything that's posted to them, as anything that's *not*
appropriately PGP-signed is automatically cancelled (and filtered through
NoCeM as well). So I put in the effort to make sure that my own FAQs are
safe. You can probably ignore that part unless you start doing
complicated things.

> There is also mention of possible difficulties if some of the other
> message header fields are omitted or incorrectly formatted. Is there
> documentation describing the requirements for FAQ posting someplace?

A quick Google search came up with this:

http://www.ii.com/internet/faqs/writing/#writing

These aren't requirements, they're just the rules for submitting
things through to news.answers. (There's problems with news.answers at the
moment, too, so that might not be that helpful; but it's a good
introduction.)

- Tim Skirvin )
Chair, Big-8 Management Board
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Owen Hiller wrote:
>
>>gatt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
>>>>>something, you're barking up the wrong tree.
>>>>
>>>>I am not. You wrote that the vietnam veterans who were criticizing
>>>>Kerry's story just happened to come out at the election time, therefore
>>>>they >only had political motivations. I just pointed out that it was
>>>>Kerry who brought up Vietnam
>>>
>>>Ah. And what was SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH doing before Kerry brought
>>>up his Swift Boat story? Were they out dutifully purging society of swift
>>>boat frauds?
>>
>>What "frauds" are you referring to? Please describe. And who was using said frauds
>>you allege to obtain higher office?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>A moment ago you were claiming that 'someone' was attempting to diminish
>>>>Congressman Murtha's past service and sacrifices,
>>>
>>>A W F E R P E T E S A K E ! ! !
>>>http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200601/SPE20060113a.html
>>>
>>>"Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question"
>>>
>>>Not good enough? ANN COULTER! http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020002
>>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/the-swiftboating-of-john-_b_24751.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you need to resort to name calling, go right ahead.
>>>
>>>It might come down to that if you can't accept facts. If you would like,
>>>I'll find several posts demonstrating that there's a war on in the middle
>>>east and other current events covered all over the mainstream media.
>>
>>Hey, I wasn't the one who couldn't figure out why the swift boat veterans would want
>>to rebut claims AFTER they were made :) Ann Coulter makes a living by making
>>outrageous statements, so what? Huffington is a liberal axe-grinder, hardly an
>>unbiased source either. And as for your moderate voice article, you did note the
>>word "apoligize," right?
>
>
> The bottom line is that the SBV"t" attacked Kerry's service in Vietnam
> in a manner that could be described as dishonest. The fact is that the
> overwhelming majority of guys who were with Kerry (on his boat) or near
> Kerry (on other boats) in combat, have no problem with Kerry's medals
> and/or service in Vietnam.
>
> The SBV"t" misrepresented the facts. They omitted facts when it suited
> then, and they spun wildly.
>
> Actually, describing it as dishonest would be an understatement.

Agreed. Describing Kerry as dishonest would be a huge understatement.

Matt

[Roger[_3_]]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>
>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>> more focused group.

Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

>
>Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
>enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Those exist on nearly every group I've seen. Whether they have an
agenda, or they are trolling the effect is the same.

>
>Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!

Agreed. I think we have more than enough groups with enough topics
already and one more would just dilute the existing ones leaving us
with a higher signal to noise ratio. There will always be a signal to
noise ratio that rises and falls on any non-moderated group and some
moderated ones. They come and go. Ignore 'em and sooner of later they
finally get tired or Darwinism cleans the gene pool. Admittedly some
come from the shallow end of the pool and will post for the sake of
posting whether ignored or not. However those posters tend to follow
the groups. Normally a subject line says it all. One look and I know
if I want to read it, ignore it, kill file the thread, or killfile the
poster.

Of all options, new news groups, complaining, arguing with the poster,
or the <delete> key, <delete> is the easiest, and by far the least
stressful.

To me another aviation group is just a waste of time and computing
resources.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Riley]

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>>
>>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>>> more focused group.
>
>Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
>membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
>after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.

Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
--
Jim Riley

[Daryl Hunt]

"Jim Riley" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>>>
>>>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>>>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>>>> more focused group.
>>
>>Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
>>membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
>>after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.
>
> Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
> groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).
> --
> Jim Riley

I thought about proposing soc.military.missile.pilot but we ran out of
posters

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:50:56 GMT, Jim Riley >
wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400, Roger
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jim Riley" > wrote
>>>
>>>> There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
>>>> potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
>>>> more focused group.
>>
>>Get a group too focused and several things happen. It gets a small
>>membership, the signal to noise ratio will end up mostly noise, and
>>after the initial topics the things end up almost deserted.
>
>Quite possibly true. This has happened in several of the rec.aviation.*
>groups (ballooning, hang-gliding, powerchutes).

Pretty much the same in Rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.dslr, and
rec.photo.zlr. zlr only gets a token posting, while dslr and digital
are almost carbon copies of each other (with a few exceptions)

The question to ask is why is a new group or groups being proposed?
If it's due to OT posts, political rants which are OT posts, people
who cant get along, or just a plain high signal to noise they want to
avoid, none of these are valid reasons or will they work.

OTOH if there are enough people to make another newsgroup active and
viable, that is a topic not now adequately covered it's worth a try,
but there are a lot of dead news groups that sounded like a good idea
to people at the time. "In general" for most topics we already have
too many news groups and another one just dilutes the content on those
already in existence.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com