Piloting an AC-130 Spectre

[Jay Honeck]

The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm if you
don't know what one looks like) got me wondering how, exactly, one
would pilot such a craft during an attack.

Think about it. You've got a 155,000 pound, 4-engine transport
aircraft, making a continual left turn in order to keep your weapons on
the mark. It's pitch dark (darkness is your only defense, other than
ECM), and you've got 105 mm cannons firing right behind your ear.

I've watched C-130s turn, and they need a LOT of territory to turn
around. In order to keep their weapons on the target, I would think
the AC-130 would need to bank a lot more steeply than I've seen them do
in cargo-plane training. And, don't forget, you've got 14 guys and
gals seated behind you, working radar and weapons systems, most with no
view outside, so you can't yank and crank TOO hard or you'll have
barf-covered equipment from stem to stern.

In order to keep the weapons on target, I would think that you'd have
to hold altitude accurately, too, and your "track" would need to be
smooth enough so that the computers could figure deflection accurately.


In short, the pilot must have his hand's full during an attack run!
Even though you don't think of the C-130 as being a high-performance
aircraft, it's got to be a real trick keeping that pig over a
(relatively) small target.

Any former AC-130 pilots here? How'd you do it? Is there an autopilot
that holds you in a constant turn during an attack run, or is it all
hand-flown?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 11 Jan 2007 07:59:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
>gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm

Sadly, your assertion about obliteration is not true. From what I've
heard so far, only _ONE_ confirmed Al Queda member has been killed
despite over 100 deaths there at the hands of the US military
presumably under orders of their commander, the eriadite Mr. Bush. :-(

Welcome to World War III.

[Kevin Clarke]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2007 07:59:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in . com>:
>
>> The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
>> gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm
>
> Sadly, your assertion about obliteration is not true. From what I've
> heard so far, only _ONE_ confirmed Al Queda member has been killed
> despite over 100 deaths there at the hands of the US military
> presumably under orders of their commander, the eriadite Mr. Bush. :-(
>
> Welcome to World War III.
>


Not even 1. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/11/somalia.ap/index.html

we've been in WW III since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. You could
even argue the Iranian revolution back in '79.

As for piloting the AC-130, basic turn around a point that we all
learned early on. :^) Except in executing that ground reference maneuver
you are a cloudburst of lead.

KC

[Christopher Campbell]

On 2007-01-11 07:59:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > said:

>
>
> Any former AC-130 pilots here? How'd you do it? Is there an autopilot
> that holds you in a constant turn during an attack run, or is it all
> hand-flown?

I don't know about now, but in my day it was hand-flown even in a
regular C-130. It was just a turn around a point. The AC-130 guys used
the wingtip as a gunsight. You just held it on the target and turned
around it.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Christopher Campbell]

On 2007-01-11 08:20:20 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

> On 11 Jan 2007 07:59:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in . com>:
>
>> The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
>> gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm
>
> Sadly, your assertion about obliteration is not true. From what I've
> heard so far, only _ONE_ confirmed Al Queda member has been killed
> despite over 100 deaths there at the hands of the US military
> presumably under orders of their commander, the eriadite Mr. Bush. :-(
>
> Welcome to World War III.

Quit spouting the terrorist line, Larry, or tell us how to fight a war
without killing civilians.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Kevin Clarke]

Christopher Campbell <christophercampbell wrote:
> On 2007-01-11 08:20:20 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:
>
>> On 11 Jan 2007 07:59:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> in . com>:
>>
>>> The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
>>> gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm
>>
>> Sadly, your assertion about obliteration is not true. From what I've
>> heard so far, only _ONE_ confirmed Al Queda member has been killed
>> despite over 100 deaths there at the hands of the US military
>> presumably under orders of their commander, the eriadite Mr. Bush. :-(
>>
>> Welcome to World War III.
>
> Quit spouting the terrorist line, Larry, or tell us how to fight a war
> without killing civilians.
>


I suspect there was a failure of intelligence here. I know if I had a
grudge against my neighbor I'd be sure to tell the local Special OPS
guys that they were Al Qaeda. :^)

KC

[Christopher Campbell]

On 2007-01-11 08:29:50 -0800, Kevin Clarke > said:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2007 07:59:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> in . com>:
>>
>>> The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
>>> gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm
>>
>> Sadly, your assertion about obliteration is not true. From what I've
>> heard so far, only _ONE_ confirmed Al Queda member has been killed
>> despite over 100 deaths there at the hands of the US military
>> presumably under orders of their commander, the eriadite Mr. Bush. :-(
>>
>> Welcome to World War III.
>
>
> Not even 1. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/11/somalia.ap/index.html
>
> we've been in WW III since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. You could
> even argue the Iranian revolution back in '79.
>
> As for piloting the AC-130, basic turn around a point that we all
> learned early on. :^) Except in executing that ground reference
> maneuver you are a cloudburst of lead.
>
> KC

World War III was the Cold War. This is World War IV.

Funny. Bet Mr. Bush can spell "erudite," even if Larry can't. Funny
also how heavily armed a lot of those "civilians" seem to be.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bill Watson]

It's going to get bloody in here.... Jay, there's a lot of descriptive
stuff written about this setup and lot's of action stories. I"m sure
people will hook you up. But I always had to turn away from those
stories - even though it's not the most effective, high tech weapon out
there, it is the epitome of high explosive terrorism from the air. Naw,
cluster bombs sound worse.

Objectively, it's not always clear who the biggest terrorists are. So
let's pick up that bloody flag and wave it some more.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
> gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm if you
> don't know what one looks like) got me wondering how, exactly, one
> would pilot such a craft during an attack.
>
> Think about it. You've got a 155,000 pound, 4-engine transport
> aircraft, making a continual left turn in order to keep your weapons on
> the mark. It's pitch dark (darkness is your only defense, other than
> ECM), and you've got 105 mm cannons firing right behind your ear.
>
> I've watched C-130s turn, and they need a LOT of territory to turn
> around. In order to keep their weapons on the target, I would think
> the AC-130 would need to bank a lot more steeply than I've seen them do
> in cargo-plane training. And, don't forget, you've got 14 guys and
> gals seated behind you, working radar and weapons systems, most with no
> view outside, so you can't yank and crank TOO hard or you'll have
> barf-covered equipment from stem to stern.
>
> In order to keep the weapons on target, I would think that you'd have
> to hold altitude accurately, too, and your "track" would need to be
> smooth enough so that the computers could figure deflection accurately.
>
>
> In short, the pilot must have his hand's full during an attack run!
> Even though you don't think of the C-130 as being a high-performance
> aircraft, it's got to be a real trick keeping that pig over a
> (relatively) small target.
>
> Any former AC-130 pilots here? How'd you do it? Is there an autopilot
> that holds you in a constant turn during an attack run, or is it all
> hand-flown?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:47:55 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> wrote in
<2007011108475575249-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:

>Quit spouting the terrorist line, Larry, or tell us how to fight a war
>without killing civilians.

I speak for myself alone.

I notice you didn't take issue with any of my assertions.

I guess you can't face the truth.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bill Watson wrote:
> It's going to get bloody in here.... Jay, there's a lot of descriptive
> stuff written about this setup and lot's of action stories. I"m sure
> people will hook you up. But I always had to turn away from those
> stories - even though it's not the most effective, high tech weapon
> out there, it is the epitome of high explosive terrorism from the
> air. Naw, cluster bombs sound worse.
>
> Objectively, it's not always clear who the biggest terrorists are. So
> let's pick up that bloody flag and wave it some more.
>

When the enemy surrounds itself with civilians and is made up of civilians
it is kind of hard not to kill civilians when you attack them. We killed
LOTS and LOTS of civilians in WWII and pretty much everybody at the time
called that a just war.

We are fighting an enemy who has no problem and in fact has it as their
primary tactic to kill civilians. They also have no problem sheilding
themselves with non-combatants, including children. If we don't have the
stomach to attack them whereever they may be we need to call it quits and
pull every soldier, sailor and airman we have around the world back home.
Because we can't win or for that matter defend ourselves.

[gpsman]

Jay Honeck wrote: <brevity snip>
> In order to keep the weapons on target, I would think that you'd have
> to hold altitude accurately, too, and your "track" would need to be
> smooth enough so that the computers could figure deflection accurately.

The capabilities of weapons systems boggle the mind. When I was an
army FO/FAC (70's) it was rumored an 8-inch tracked howitzer could put
2 rounds into the same hole. Probably exaggeration, but not beyond the
realm of possibility.

FDC's (fire direction centers) used to compute the the trajectories -by
hand-, including temperature, humidity, surface wind, winds aloft,
differences in elevation between the gun and target and the rotation of
the earth for the duration of the round flight. A good FO could "Fire
For Effect" and put "steel on target" the third round, but not without
estimating the effect of the adjustment gun's hot barrel as opposed to
the other gun's cold barrels.

I only adjusted navy guns in training but they were, by far, the most
accurate... while floating and rocking in the sea. How... I have no
idea.

With GPS and computer-controlled guns factored into the equation, if it
can be seen, it can be destroyed. I imagine Spooky pilots might not
have to fly much of an attack at all, but I would -love- to hear what
actually goes on.

I've seen video from the FLIR camera of a night attack on "personnel in
the open" using the smaller cannons and the helplessness of the targets
was truly pitiful. One second they were there going about their
business, the next few seconds they were converted to pink mist. There
was -no chance- for escape.
-----

- gpsman

[Kingfish]

Richard Riley wrote:
> In the latest version all the cannons are trainable - they aren't
> fixed anymore. The pilot keeps the target in sight, the weapons
> officers do the actual targeting.
>
> They've also moved from the 7.62 and 20 mm gattling guns to 30 mm
> cannons. A much lower rate of fire, but each impact is huge.

The Spooky's night & all-weather capability makes visual targeting
unnecessary.

A quick search showed the new AC-130U has a trainable 25mm Gatling-type
cannon and a single 40mm Bofors mount in addition to the 105mm
howitzer. All the guns can be slaved to sensors for fire control, so
when the aicraft is orbiting (autopilot?) the FC computer is making all
the corrections as the radar is tracking outgoing 40 & 105 rounds and
the low light TV & infrared sensor allows visual verification. My guess
is a platform that sophisticated probably has an autopilot interface
with the FC computer so the pilot doesn't have to yaw the plane to
adjust the gun's aim point.

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
> gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm if you
> don't know what one looks like) got me wondering how, exactly, one
> would pilot such a craft during an attack.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16576458/
Ooooh, so close.

Would you like to take another shot at winning your gal that big stuffed
Teddy Bear? All it takes to "win" is ONE BBBBILLION dollars. Who'll play.
Who's next? How 'bout you fella?


Montblack

[Jim Macklin]

The FAA commercial maneuver known as Turns On A Point. It
is done by using pivotal altitude.



"Montblack" > wrote
in message ...
| ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
| > The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al
Queda by an AC-130
| > gunship (See
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm if you
| > don't know what one looks like) got me wondering how,
exactly, one
| > would pilot such a craft during an attack.
|
|
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16576458/
| Ooooh, so close.
|
| Would you like to take another shot at winning your gal
that big stuffed
| Teddy Bear? All it takes to "win" is ONE BBBBILLION
dollars. Who'll play.
| Who's next? How 'bout you fella?
|
|
| Montblack
|
|

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> I notice you didn't take issue with any of my assertions.

....Just as you chose not to address any of Jay's actual questions. As usual,
you take any opportunity to spout anti-Bush/anti-military rhetoric. Really,
it's OK. It's part of your persona we've come to expect.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Bill Watson]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The FAA commercial maneuver known as Turns On A Point. It
> is done by using pivotal altitude.
>
and using pitch to adjust for wind. A fun and rewarding maneuver.

So, what is pivotal altitude for AC-130 flying at what? 200+? knots

The faster, the higher, the better, I would guess.


>
> "Montblack" > wrote
> in message ...
> | ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> | > The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al
> Queda by an AC-130
> | > gunship (See
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm if you
> | > don't know what one looks like) got me wondering how,
> exactly, one
> | > would pilot such a craft during an attack.
> |
> |
> | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16576458/
> | Ooooh, so close.
> |
> | Would you like to take another shot at winning your gal
> that big stuffed
> | Teddy Bear? All it takes to "win" is ONE BBBBILLION
> dollars. Who'll play.
> | Who's next? How 'bout you fella?
> |
> |
> | Montblack
> |
> |
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Bill Watson > wrote:

> It's going to get bloody in here.... Jay, there's a lot of descriptive
> stuff written about this setup and lot's of action stories. I"m sure
> people will hook you up. But I always had to turn away from those
> stories - even though it's not the most effective, high tech weapon out
> there, it is the epitome of high explosive terrorism from the air. Naw,
> cluster bombs sound worse.
>
> Objectively, it's not always clear who the biggest terrorists are. So
> let's pick up that bloody flag and wave it some more.

Objectively, the terrorists attacked civilians in our own country, via
methods unlawful even in warfare. Had they not done this, we would not
be there.

They take their families along with them and hide behind civilians,
daring us to shoot.

They want to commit terror -- we can (and will) show them what *REAL*
terror is! Mullah Omar reputedly remarked that he was surprised at the
fury of our response to 9/11. Let them know that it is really not a good
idea to pull on a tiger's tail!

[Jim Macklin]

AOPA Online Instructor Reports - Pivotal Altitude Explained
....
Pivotal altitude depends on groundspeed. The faster
the groundspeed, ... To estimate pivotal altitude, square
the groundspeed and then divide by 15 if you ...
www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=226
- 26k - Cached - Similar pages

To estimate pivotal altitude, square the groundspeed
and then divide by 15 if you use mph, or 11.3 if you prefer
knots.
That will provide a starting altitude. For example,
100 mph times 100 equals 10,000, divided by 15 equals 666
feet approximate
pivotal altitude. A groundspeed of 95 mph results in a
pivotal altitude of 600 feet.
Hence, traveling at 100 mph on the fast side, pivotal
altitude is 666 feet. On the slower side-the side into the
wind-95 mph results in a
pivotal altitude that is 60 feet lower than the fast
side.


Using mph 200^2 is 40,000/15 equals 2666.66 and 300 needs
6,000 feet. A Cub is down around 500 feet. But 200 knots
gives 3539 feet and 300 knots needs 7965, high about small
arms, but still range of shoulder fired missiles.

Of course the C-130 can carry the Daisy Cutter and MOAB to
really clear the area.




"Bill Watson" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The FAA commercial maneuver known as Turns On A Point.
It
| > is done by using pivotal altitude.
| >
| and using pitch to adjust for wind. A fun and rewarding
maneuver.
|
| So, what is pivotal altitude for AC-130 flying at what?
200+? knots
|
| The faster, the higher, the better, I would guess.
|
|
| >
| > "Montblack" >
wrote
| > in message ...
| > | ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
| > | > The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al
| > Queda by an AC-130
| > | > gunship (See
| > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm if you
| > | > don't know what one looks like) got me wondering
how,
| > exactly, one
| > | > would pilot such a craft during an attack.
| > |
| > |
| > | http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16576458/
| > | Ooooh, so close.
| > |
| > | Would you like to take another shot at winning your
gal
| > that big stuffed
| > | Teddy Bear? All it takes to "win" is ONE BBBBILLION
| > dollars. Who'll play.
| > | Who's next? How 'bout you fella?
| > |
| > |
| > | Montblack
| > |
| > |
| >
| >

[[email protected]]

Les Matheson is frequently on rec.aviation.military. He was an EWO
(Electronic Warfare Officer) on AC-130s for awhile, I'm sure he could answer
your question about how the pilots fly the plane during the attack. Try
posting your question there.
Scott Wilson

[Jay Honeck]

> Of course the C-130 can carry the Daisy Cutter and MOAB to
> really clear the area.

The what?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Les Matheson is frequently on rec.aviation.military. He was an EWO
> (Electronic Warfare Officer) on AC-130s for awhile, I'm sure he could answer
> your question about how the pilots fly the plane during the attack. Try
> posting your question there.

Done. Great idea!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> MOAB. Mother Of All Bombs. Also known as the Massive Ordnance Air
> Burst. It's a Big Bomb. I think it may even be the biggest non-nuclear
> one we make.
>
> Jay, you've never heard of it?

Is that the so-called "fuel-air" bomb, like they used in the movie
"Outbreak"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Clear]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Of course the C-130 can carry the Daisy Cutter and MOAB to
>> really clear the area.
>
>The what?

Daisy Cutter is a 15,000 lbs bomb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82

MOAB (Mother of all Bombs, 21,000lbs):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Jose]

> The what?

MOAB. Mother Of All Bombs. Also known as the Massive Ordnance Air
Burst. It's a Big Bomb. I think it may even be the biggest non-nuclear
one we make.

Jay, you've never heard of it?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
> gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm if you
> don't know what one looks like) got me wondering how, exactly, one
> would pilot such a craft during an attack.
>
> Think about it. You've got a 155,000 pound, 4-engine transport
> aircraft, making a continual left turn in order to keep your weapons on
> the mark. It's pitch dark (darkness is your only defense, other than
> ECM), and you've got 105 mm cannons firing right behind your ear.
>
> I've watched C-130s turn, and they need a LOT of territory to turn
> around. In order to keep their weapons on the target, I would think
> the AC-130 would need to bank a lot more steeply than I've seen them do
> in cargo-plane training. And, don't forget, you've got 14 guys and
> gals seated behind you, working radar and weapons systems, most with no
> view outside, so you can't yank and crank TOO hard or you'll have
> barf-covered equipment from stem to stern.
>
> In order to keep the weapons on target, I would think that you'd have
> to hold altitude accurately, too, and your "track" would need to be
> smooth enough so that the computers could figure deflection accurately.
>
>
> In short, the pilot must have his hand's full during an attack run!
> Even though you don't think of the C-130 as being a high-performance
> aircraft, it's got to be a real trick keeping that pig over a
> (relatively) small target.
>
> Any former AC-130 pilots here? How'd you do it? Is there an autopilot
> that holds you in a constant turn during an attack run, or is it all
> hand-flown?

Actually, Jay, when you start your commercial certificate training you
will learn how to do this. It is called a "turn on a pylon" or "eights
on pylons" and is one of the performance maneuvers you learn for the
commercial. The objective is to keep the wing pointed at a reference
point on the ground, not to maintain a constant radius from the
reference point as with the private pilot maneuvers. This is tricky as
there is only one altitude for each ground speed that will allow this to
occur, the so-called pivotal altitude. Thus, rather than varying bank
as with turns around a point, you must constantly vary altitude to
adjust for the varying groundspeed as you go around the pylon. If you
had zero wind, then the pivotal altitude would remain constant.

I'm getting better flying this maneuver, but I still could not keep a
gun on a target!

I assume that the C-130 pilots have a little help with this maneuver,
but I don't know for sure how they do this.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On 11 Jan 2007 07:59:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in . com>:
>
>
>>The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
>>gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm
>
>
> Sadly, your assertion about obliteration is not true. From what I've
> heard so far, only _ONE_ confirmed Al Queda member has been killed
> despite over 100 deaths there at the hands of the US military
> presumably under orders of their commander, the eriadite Mr. Bush. :-(
>
> Welcome to World War III.

Oh, it looked to me more like Liberal Whining I. :-)

Matt

[Don Tabor]

On 11 Jan 2007 10:11:47 -0800, "gpsman" >
wrote:

>The capabilities of weapons systems boggle the mind. When I was an
>army FO/FAC (70's) it was rumored an 8-inch tracked howitzer could put
>2 rounds into the same hole. Probably exaggeration, but not beyond the
>realm of possibility


Keep in mind that the Howitzer makes a sizable first hole.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Jose]

> Is that the so-called "fuel-air" bomb, like they used in the movie
> "Outbreak"?

I don't know. I thought it was conventional explosives.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:29:52 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>:

>Who'll play. Who's next? How 'bout you fella?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/30/eveningnews/main609489.shtml

Army Recruits Video Gamers

America's Army has surpassed even the Pentagon's expectations. It's
now the number one online action game in the country. The Army hasn't
seen a recruiting tool this effective since "Be all that you can be."

But psychology professor Brad Bushman of the University of Michigan, a
critic of violent video games, complains "America's Army" isn't real
enough.

"War is not a game," he says.

"The video game does provide a sanitized view of violence," says
Bushman. "For example, when you shoot someone or when you are shot you
see a puff of blood; you don't see anyone suffering or writhing in
pain."

[Christopher Campbell]

On 2007-01-11 09:22:49 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:47:55 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007011108475575249-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>
>> Quit spouting the terrorist line, Larry, or tell us how to fight a war
>> without killing civilians.
>
> I speak for myself alone.
> I notice you didn't take issue with any of my assertions.
>
> I guess you can't face the truth.

Well, that one terrorist sure managed to put up a heck of a fight, eh?
Even the combined armies of Somalia and Ethiopia were unable to enter
the area. But, come on, even bin Laden claims to be a "civilian." No
doubt, when he is killed, you will be bewailing yet another "civilian"
death. The other assertion was that Bush was "eriadite," which I
understood to be a sarcastic reference to your belief that he is
stupid. It would help if you would learn to spell before you start
calling other people stupid.

Your anti-Bush rhetoric is extremely cynical. It would be interesting
to know if your views differ from that of the terrorists in any
material whatsoever. So far, on this group anyway, you have agreed with
them 100%.

You might want to think about some of the idiocy you and the rest of
the extreme left are spouting. With any luck at all, you all would get
elected and you would be left with the problem of actually having to do
something instead of heckling from the back rows.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Kingfish]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> I'm getting better flying this maneuver, but I still could not keep a
> gun on a target!
>
> I assume that the C-130 pilots have a little help with this maneuver,
> but I don't know for sure how they do this.
>

I'd be willing to be the autopilot is tied to the fire control computer

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:36:47 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> I notice you didn't take issue with any of my assertions.
>
>...Just as you chose not to address any of Jay's actual questions.

I just thought Mr. Honeck might want to know that what he wrote was
incorrect. Does he really need you as a spokesman?

>As usual, you take any opportunity to spout anti-Bush/anti-military rhetoric.

If you choose to infer that from what I wrote, it is you who is
characterizing the situation that way. I merely stated the facts as I
believed them to be at the time.

And why do you see calling Mr. Bush 'erudite as being anti-Bush?

>Really, it's OK.

So now you're giving me your approval to exercise my right to free
speech? Please.

>It's part of your persona we've come to expect.

Who are among the group you refer to as 'we'?

[LWG]

The Ethiopians can conduct weeks of warfare with the perfect ability to
discern friend from foe, but let the US engage in *one* airstrike and the
widows and orphans are coming out of the woodwork. Are you really that
gullible, or do you just hate this country?



"> Sadly, your assertion about obliteration is not true. From what I've
> heard so far, only _ONE_ confirmed Al Queda member has been killed
> despite over 100 deaths there at the hands of the US military
> presumably under orders of their commander, the eriadite Mr. Bush. :-(
>
> Welcome to World War III.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:22:18 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> wrote in
<2007011116221843658-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:

>You might want to think about some of the idiocy you and the rest of
>the extreme left are spouting.

I'm not spouting any idiocy; I'm reporting the facts as I understand
them to be.

It is you who should consider the words of a wise man who's quoted
throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"

Oh I forgot; Mormons don't follow his teachings. They are polygamists
who believe their special underwear is fundamental to their faith. :-)

[Christopher Campbell]

On 2007-01-11 16:49:26 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:22:18 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007011116221843658-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>
>> You might want to think about some of the idiocy you and the rest of
>> the extreme left are spouting.
>
> I'm not spouting any idiocy; I'm reporting the facts as I understand
> them to be.
>
> It is you who should consider the words of a wise man who's quoted
> throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"
>
> Oh I forgot; Mormons don't follow his teachings. They are polygamists
> who believe their special underwear is fundamental to their faith. :-)

I see. You are also a bigot. Hate any other religious groups or races?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:52:26 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> wrote in
<2007011116522627544-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:

>On 2007-01-11 16:49:26 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:22:18 -0800, Christopher Campbell
>> > wrote in
>> <2007011116221843658-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>>
>>> You might want to think about some of the idiocy you and the rest of
>>> the extreme left are spouting.
>>
>> I'm not spouting any idiocy; I'm reporting the facts as I understand
>> them to be.
>>
>> It is you who should consider the words of a wise man who's quoted
>> throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"
>>
>> Oh I forgot; Mormons don't follow his teachings. They are polygamists
>> who believe their special underwear is fundamental to their faith. :-)
>
>I see. You are also a bigot. Hate any other religious groups or races?

If you infer hate in what I wrote, that says more about you than me.
I just speak the truth.

You just can't face the truth. Think about it for a while. Perhaps
when your anger subsides, you'll see that my comments are _factual_.

Yours, on the other hand, are the _subjective_ opinions.

[Christopher Campbell]

On 2007-01-11 17:06:16 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:52:26 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007011116522627544-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>
>> On 2007-01-11 16:49:26 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:22:18 -0800, Christopher Campbell
>>> > wrote in
>>> <2007011116221843658-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>>>
>>>> You might want to think about some of the idiocy you and the rest of
>>>> the extreme left are spouting.
>>>
>>> I'm not spouting any idiocy; I'm reporting the facts as I understand
>>> them to be.
>>>
>>> It is you who should consider the words of a wise man who's quoted
>>> throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"
>>>
>>> Oh I forgot; Mormons don't follow his teachings. They are polygamists
>>> who believe their special underwear is fundamental to their faith. :-)
>>
>> I see. You are also a bigot. Hate any other religious groups or races?
>
> If you infer hate in what I wrote, that says more about you than me. I
> just speak the truth.
> You just can't face the truth. Think about it for a while. Perhaps
> when your anger subsides, you'll see that my comments are _factual_.
>
> Yours, on the other hand, are the _subjective_ opinions.

You have a lot of nerve telling me what I believe. You do not speak the
truth. It is you that cannot face the truth. You have made unfounded
generalizations about me because of my religion. That constitutes
bigotry. I am not a polygamist. The term "Mormon" properly refers to
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, none of
whom are polygamists. Polygamists are excommunicated from that church.

Mormons are Christians and we do believe that we follow the teachings
of Jesus Christ -- all of them, not a few selected for personal or
political convenience. Your saying otherwise is a deliberate
misrepresentation.

I would no more make fun of a man's underwear than I would a cross, a
crescent, or any other sacred symbol. I would consider that bigotry.
You are a bigot who cannot face the truth about himself.

So, you have deliberately misrepresented my religious beliefs on three
counts and you have been called on it. And yet you accuse me of having
subjective opinions. You want to keep this up or are you just going to
slink off back into some cave to lick your wounds?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Christopher Campbell]

On 2007-01-11 17:06:16 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:52:26 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007011116522627544-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>
>> On 2007-01-11 16:49:26 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:22:18 -0800, Christopher Campbell
>>> > wrote in
>>> <2007011116221843658-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>>>
>>>> You might want to think about some of the idiocy you and the rest of
>>>> the extreme left are spouting.
>>>
>>> I'm not spouting any idiocy; I'm reporting the facts as I understand
>>> them to be.
>>>
>>> It is you who should consider the words of a wise man who's quoted
>>> throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"
>>>
>>> Oh I forgot; Mormons don't follow his teachings. They are polygamists
>>> who believe their special underwear is fundamental to their faith. :-)
>>
>> I see. You are also a bigot. Hate any other religious groups or races?
>
> If you infer hate in what I wrote, that says more about you than me. I
> just speak the truth.
> You just can't face the truth. Think about it for a while. Perhaps
> when your anger subsides, you'll see that my comments are _factual_.
>
> Yours, on the other hand, are the _subjective_ opinions.

One other thing you might want to think about before mouthing off again
about those 'conservative Mormons' you hate would be just who the most
prominent 'Mormon' politicians are these days. Harry Reid, for example,
is hardly a conservative. Mitt Romney, though he may be a Republican,
does not seem too conservative for extremely liberal Massachussetts,
what with his support for socialized medicine and other liberal causes.
Even Orrin Hatch of Utah is close friends and has co-sponsored numerous
bills with that bastion of conservatism, Ted Kennedy.

So, tell you what. Get lost. Stop posting your odious, obnoxious,
useless anti-Bush tripe, get an education and learn a little bit about
what you are talking about. And above all, try taking a course on
cultural tolerance.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> MOAB. Mother Of All Bombs. Also known as the Massive Ordnance Air
>> Burst. It's a Big Bomb. I think it may even be the biggest non-nuclear
>> one we make.
>>
>> Jay, you've never heard of it?
>
> Is that the so-called "fuel-air" bomb, like they used in the movie
> "Outbreak"?


Even bigger. It was first demonstrated after the movie came out. But you've
got the idea.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

> On 2007-01-11 16:49:26 -0800, Larry Dighera > said:
>> It is you who should consider the words of a wise man who's quoted
>> throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"
>>
>> Oh I forgot; Mormons don't follow his teachings. They are polygamists
>> who believe their special underwear is fundamental to their faith. :-)
>
> I see. You are also a bigot. Hate any other religious groups or races?


Sure. Yours.

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:22:18 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007011116221843658-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>
>
>>You might want to think about some of the idiocy you and the rest of
>>the extreme left are spouting.
>
>
> I'm not spouting any idiocy; I'm reporting the facts as I understand
> them to be.
>
> It is you who should consider the words of a wise man who's quoted
> throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"

You mean the one who threw the moneychangers out of the temple?

Matt

[Kev]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>[...] And, don't forget, you've got 14 guys and
> gals seated behind you, working radar and weapons systems, most with no
> view outside, so you can't yank and crank TOO hard or you'll have
> barf-covered equipment from stem to stern.

Heh, in my experience, military pilots aren't that concerned about us
people in back :-) If they need to yank and bank, that's what they'll
do.

The Spectres are scary to troops on the ground. I remember in the
desert one time, I could vaguely hear something above. No lights on
the plane, of course, and no moon that night either. We were hunkered
down, and I was on guard duty. Suddenly I saw a mesa nearby light up,
just like you see in Close Encounters, with a beam from nowhere. It
lasted maybe a second.

A minute or so later, our mesa got lit the same way. For one short
moment, you could read a newspaper. Your hair goes up on the back of
your neck, I can tell you.

Can't say if it's true or not, but the story goes that if they read
your name on your BDUs, then they call down and you get into trouble
for being too exposed :-)

Kev
(ex-SSGT,USASA)

[Marco Leon]

Wow Larry, it only took the very next post for you to take the thread
off-topic commenting on none of Jay's aviation-related questions. I
hope you're not angling to become a moderator of THIS group...



Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2007 07:59:31 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in . com>:
>
> >The recent obliteration of the Somali chapter of Al Queda by an AC-130
> >gunship (See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm
>
> Sadly, your assertion about obliteration is not true. From what I've
> heard so far, only _ONE_ confirmed Al Queda member has been killed
> despite over 100 deaths there at the hands of the US military
> presumably under orders of their commander, the eriadite Mr. Bush. :-(
>
> Welcome to World War III.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:22:18 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007011116221843658-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>
> >You might want to think about some of the idiocy you and the rest of
> >the extreme left are spouting.
>
> I'm not spouting any idiocy; I'm reporting the facts as I understand
> them to be.
>
> It is you who should consider the words of a wise man who's quoted
> throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"

It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
Cole, etc.

IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.

[Jay Beckman]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>[...] And, don't forget, you've got 14 guys and
>> gals seated behind you, working radar and weapons systems, most with no
>> view outside, so you can't yank and crank TOO hard or you'll have
>> barf-covered equipment from stem to stern.
>
> Heh, in my experience, military pilots aren't that concerned about us
> people in back :-) If they need to yank and bank, that's what they'll
> do.
>
> The Spectres are scary to troops on the ground. I remember in the
> desert one time, I could vaguely hear something above. No lights on
> the plane, of course, and no moon that night either. We were hunkered
> down, and I was on guard duty. Suddenly I saw a mesa nearby light up,
> just like you see in Close Encounters, with a beam from nowhere. It
> lasted maybe a second.
>
> A minute or so later, our mesa got lit the same way. For one short
> moment, you could read a newspaper. Your hair goes up on the back of
> your neck, I can tell you.
>
> Can't say if it's true or not, but the story goes that if they read
> your name on your BDUs, then they call down and you get into trouble
> for being too exposed :-)
>
> Kev
> (ex-SSGT,USASA)

Interesting that you mention this...

I recall attending an airshow somwhere several years ago and being told by
an AC-130 crewperson that the fire-control system not only knows where to
shoot but also knows where *not* to shoot.

Jay B

[Montblack]

("Christopher Campbell wrote)
> And above all, try taking a course on cultural tolerance.


I don't have a wife in this fight...
(Oh, come on. That's funny)

....but, it seems to me, not picking on you Mormie, people tend to turn the
volume up to 11 (immediately) when confronted. There is a distinct lack of
"proportionality"(?) going on these days - everywhere. "You diss'd my
shoes" - BANG!

Bigoted? Hate?

How about silly and confused? That might show some tolerance for Larry's
....culture. I don't even want to know. <g>

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon013.htm
This is all new to me. This was the most "interesting" of the Google
returns.

And to think, my entire elementary school had to eat fish sticks on Friday
because of us Catholic kids. Hehehe.

My plan for New Orleans - 2005:
Send in the National Guard?
Hell no. We're sending in the Mormons!
(It would halve cost 1/10th as much and gotten 10 times the results!)


MontBlack and MontWhite :-) (-:
For the record: I am 100% in favor of polygamy ...and good luck to those
brave souls who try it.
(I call it: A Lawyer's Paradise)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> I assume that the C-130 pilots have a little help with this maneuver, but
> I don't know for sure how they do this.

I read that the gooney bird pilots had a fighter plane gun sight aimed out
the left window. They used bank angle to move the strike point up and down,
and rudder to move the impacts left and right.

I'll bet they have "a little" more sophisticated method, now. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

Fuel-air bombs or MOAB mix a gaseous or powdered explosive
with air in a cloud and then the cloud is detonated.

It is conventional and not nuclear. But it may have a
kiloton rating.



"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
|> Is that the so-called "fuel-air" bomb, like they used in
the movie
| > "Outbreak"?
|
| I don't know. I thought it was conventional explosives.
|
| Jose
| --
| He who laughs, lasts.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

Truth is what ever you believe, facts are what is real.



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:52:26 -0800, Christopher Campbell
| > wrote in
|
<2007011116522627544-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
|
| >On 2007-01-11 16:49:26 -0800, Larry Dighera
> said:
| >
| >> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:22:18 -0800, Christopher
Campbell
| >> > wrote in
| >>
<2007011116221843658-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
| >>
| >>> You might want to think about some of the idiocy you
and the rest of
| >>> the extreme left are spouting.
| >>
| >> I'm not spouting any idiocy; I'm reporting the facts as
I understand
| >> them to be.
| >>
| >> It is you who should consider the words of a wise man
who's quoted
| >> throughout the world: "Turn the other cheek"
| >>
| >> Oh I forgot; Mormons don't follow his teachings. They
are polygamists
| >> who believe their special underwear is fundamental to
their faith. :-)
| >
| >I see. You are also a bigot. Hate any other religious
groups or races?
|
| If you infer hate in what I wrote, that says more about
you than me.
| I just speak the truth.
|
| You just can't face the truth. Think about it for a
while. Perhaps
| when your anger subsides, you'll see that my comments are
_factual_.
|
| Yours, on the other hand, are the _subjective_ opinions.
|
|

[Dave S]

Jay Honeck wrote:
How'd you do it? Is there an autopilot
> that holds you in a constant turn during an attack run, or is it all
> hand-flown?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay

If you can fly to commercial standards you should be able to perform
the maneuver in question: Pylon turns.

The rest is just relative: size of the craft, airspeed, etc. A pylon
turn is a pylon turn. Add to that the night vision equipment and a
"gunsight" mounted on the pilots left side for maintaining the ground
reference point.

Not saying its child play, but its certainly not superman stuff either.
However, keep in mind that the average person in civilian life doesn't
have to worry about ground fire being returned.

Dave

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:37:36 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> wrote in
<2007011118373677923-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:

>One other thing you might want to think about before mouthing off again
>about those 'conservative Mormons' you hate

I have no hatred of Mormons. It is irrational belief that I oppose.

[Larry Dighera]

On 11 Jan 2007 19:59:21 -0800, "Marco Leon" > wrote
in om>:

>Wow Larry, it only took the very next post for you to take the thread
>off-topic commenting on none of Jay's aviation-related questions.

It was Mr. Honeck who expressed an erroneous statement, and I sought
to correct it. Would you prefer to read inaccurate statements or
truth?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:26:21 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>:

>It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
>past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
>Cole, etc.

Can there be too many times? Aggression only spawns more aggression.
Isn't that the wisdom behind Christ's words?

>IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
>again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.

That's not a very enlightened attitude, IMO.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:21:17 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> wrote in
<2007011118211750878-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:

First, let me say, that from reading your articles over the years, I
would characterize you _personally_ as a warm, gregarious,
intelligent, knowledgeable, individual. Certainly, as a flight
instructor, you have my sincere respect and admiration.

But when I see someone embracing irrational beliefs, it angers me,
because they blindly choose to deny reality, and that very denial of
rational thinking ENABLES those in power to commit unpardonable acts
against humanity, much as the irrational religious beliefs of the
Muslims are used to whip them into an irrational anti-American frenzy.

>I would no more make fun of a man's underwear than I would a cross, a
>crescent, or any other sacred symbol.

Perhaps it's time you examined your reticence. It may be considered
polite to overlook irrationality, but it only serves to support it. In
my opinion, it is more noble to embrace truth at the risk of censure,
than remain silent in an effort to escape ridicule. Irrational belief
is an INSULT to those who would embrace the truth.

>I would consider that bigotry.

I characterize exposing irrational beliefs, regardless of where they
are found, as a service supported by the fact, that if the 'Decider'
hadn't been blinded by his irrational beliefs:

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me
to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me
to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve
the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if
not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Bush would have followed the enlightened teachings of his savior,
instead of using his faith and irrational beliefs to cause
reinforcement of negative world opinion toward the US at this critical
time in history. Our nation would today enjoy the world's public
support, instead of it's fear and distrust, if Bush had heeded the
WRITTEN words of Christ, and been capable of appreciating the futility
of this war, instead of listening to the irrational VOICES IN HIS
HEAD.

His misconceived policies have directly caused our nation to expend
over three billion dollars a week to wage his hopeless vendetta, so
that your children and their children will be paying for his fiasco
long after you are dead.

What is viewed by the world as the "war president's" global
expansionism, at the very time when our nation has been left as the
world's last remaining superpower, gives the appearance to the world
of a megalomaniac desire for world domination. Instead of fulfilling
the leadership role appropriate to a nation that possesses unlimited
power and respects the dignity of human life, our nation is being lead
down the same unenlightened path that has plagued our species since
time immemorial. The world's people find Bush's actions frightening,
and fear breeds hate, hate directed toward our once noble nation.

And now that Bush has gone and "kicked the tar baby", and caused our
great nation to become mired in the butchery occurring in Iraq, and
the injustice of suspending judicial due process, and condoning
torture, and spying on our nation's citizens without benefit of legal
warrant, and ..., I am FORCED TO SUPPORT HIS FAILED POLICY or risk
even worse consequences. I'm not willing to sit quietly by any
longer, for to do so is to condone the transgressions against the
noble, enlightened foundations upon which our nation is predicated.

We must reclaim our nation from the influences of corporate greed such
as that committed by Bush's buddy Lay, the crimes of congressional
corruption such as that typified by DeLay and Cunningham, and the
powerful influence of irrational religious belief wielded by perverted
shamans, or face inevitable decline.

I'm tired of seeing our nation run by people who support the hypocrisy
of preachers Haggard and Robertson, and Baker, and Fallwell, and
Swaggart . I'm appalled by the sex crimes committed against the
children of their parishioners permitted to occur for decades by
Catholic shamans. Much as the irrational religious beliefs of the
Muslims is used to whip the faithful into an irrational anti-American
frenzy in the name of those same type of irrational beliefs, the
irrational religious beliefs of the people of our nation are used to
control us. Religious hypocrisy is not only a blatant fact, it has a
long standing history. Isn't it time we shrugged off the VOODOO of
our cave welling ancestors, and embraced TRUTH AND RATIONAL THOUGHT?
Please.

RATIONAL, THINKING PEOPLE ARE VICTOMS OF THOSE WHO ARE ABLE TO WIELD
THEIR POWER UNJUSTLY AS A RESULT OF THE IRRATIONAL BELIEFS HELD BY THE
SHEEP WHO SURRENDER THEIR COMMON SENSE TO CHARLOTINS.

Being made a VICTOM OF IRRATIONAL THOUGHT angers me, and I'm willing
to suffer public ridicule resulting from speaking against the
political-correctness used to silence the truth, and expose the lies
of irrational thinking wherever they present themselves. Today I am
able to do that, unlike Galileo who was persecuted by the clergy for
the truth he discovered and unselfishly wished to share with the
world. It's time rationally thinking people had the courage denounce
the irrational thinkers in our midst and speak out publicly against
irrational thought.

>You are a bigot who cannot face the truth about himself.

Why is it that religion is so quick to mislabel anyone who threatens
their power with some negative epitaph? Next you'll be calling me a
heathen and heretic for exposing the truth. Don't feel threatened by
the truth; find the courage to embrace it. In the long run, there is
no other real choice but truth.

I was hoping to get your attention, and point out the fact that many
people possess irrational views even today. And it seems you may be
one of them.

I am OUTRAGED by our president's using a foundation of deliberate
lies, much like religious leaders do, to plunge our nation into a
quagmire from which it will take decades to extricate ourselves. And
this is at the cost of the lives of brave citizens and the trillions
of dollars that could better be spent on constructive things like the
improvement of our nations pathetic educational system.

That is something that would truly benefit our country and the world,
and permit our nation to slip the shackles of ignorance, and
benevolently lead the way to world prosperity and justice in the 21st
century. But the public funds necessary to accomplish constructive
good have now been and are being SQUANDERED on useless destruction.
Destructive war is a travesty, and it only begets more war. Christ
delivered that truth ("turn the other cheek") to the world, but those
who claim to follow him haven't _yet_ learned that important lesson.

To see someone inaccurately defending Bush amounts to a distortion of
reality, and dishonesty rooted in the same sort of irrational
religiosity currently engaged in by 90% of our nation's citizens. Wake
up man. Face the truth. The MAGICAL THINKERS are in control of the
world, and they're causing pain and death wherever they spread their
irrational lies. Cast off the archaic dogma, and embrace objective,
rational thought. You don't need dogma. You're too bright for any
more of that tripe! You're an enlightened citizen of the 21st
century. Think!

It is the power of irrational belief to ENABLE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR that
I seek to expose.

</rant>-

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> </rant>-

As I said: Predictable.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:29:52 -0600, "Montblack"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Who'll play. Who's next? How 'bout you fella?
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/30/eveningnews/main609489.shtml
>
> Army Recruits Video Gamers
>
> America's Army has surpassed even the Pentagon's expectations. It's
> now the number one online action game in the country. The Army hasn't
> seen a recruiting tool this effective since "Be all that you can be."
>
> But psychology professor Brad Bushman of the University of Michigan, a
> critic of violent video games, complains "America's Army" isn't real
> enough.
>
> "War is not a game," he says.
>
> "The video game does provide a sanitized view of violence," says
> Bushman. "For example, when you shoot someone or when you are shot you
> see a puff of blood; you don't see anyone suffering or writhing in
> pain."


One interesting thing about this game was that no matter which side you
played on you were the "Good Guys" with the US uniform or weapons.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:26:21 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
> >past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
> >Cole, etc.
>
> Can there be too many times? Aggression only spawns more aggression.
> Isn't that the wisdom behind Christ's words?
>
> >IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
> >again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.
>
> That's not a very enlightened attitude, IMO.

I think that it is a very enlightened approach -- it assures survival to
promote further "enlightened attitudes."

J.C. never mentioned what you do after the other guy hits you again.

Some people and groups respect only superior force.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:31:53 -0800, Larry Dighera wrote
(in article >):

> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:21:17 -0800, Christopher Campbell
> > wrote in
> <2007011118211750878-christophercampbelldeletethis@hotmailcom>:
>
> First, let me say, that from reading your articles over the years, I
> would characterize you _personally_ as a warm, gregarious,
> intelligent, knowledgeable, individual. Certainly, as a flight
> instructor, you have my sincere respect and admiration.
>
> But when I see someone embracing irrational beliefs, it angers me,
> because they blindly choose to deny reality, and that very denial of
> rational thinking ENABLES those in power to commit unpardonable acts
> against humanity, much as the irrational religious beliefs of the
> Muslims are used to whip them into an irrational anti-American frenzy.

My beliefs are neither blind nor irrational. I have very strong reasons for
believing what I believe.

I might point out that such "rational" atheists as Stalin and Pol Pot managed
to do a pretty good job at genocide, too. Even Nietzsche knew that
rationalism, as he knew it, was a dead-end road. And look at the horrors that
such rationalism unleashed on the 20th century.

My church leaders are unlikely to tell me to kill anybody. In fact, when I
was in the mission field, I was strongly discouraged from expressing any
political opinions at all. No one in the leadership of the Church has
expressed much in the way of political opinions in decades, except to say
that members should be involved in all the political parties of their
countries and should work for "just causes."

We are opposed to violence except in self defense or, if you are in the
military, then serving your nation as honorably as you can. As for the war in
Iraq and elsewhere, Church members freely express their opinion on whether
that war is for self defense or not. Some feel it is, others not. I am not
convinced that it is, for whatever that may be worth to you. We believe that
all violence and hatred are evil.

I am very sorry that you think I have a blind, irrational belief. But that
says a lot more about you and your beliefs than it does about mine. You have
crossed over a line by being personally insulting and mocking things I
consider sacred. That was not nice, nor was it rational, nor was it with open
eyes. I hope that someday you will find peace.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:10:33 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:26:21 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
>> >past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
>> >Cole, etc.
>>
>> Can there be too many times? Aggression only spawns more aggression.
>> Isn't that the wisdom behind Christ's words?
>>
>> >IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
>> >again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.
>>
>> That's not a very enlightened attitude, IMO.
>
>I think that it is a very enlightened approach -- it assures survival to
>promote further "enlightened attitudes."
>
>J.C. never mentioned what you do after the other guy hits you again.
>
>Some people and groups respect only superior force.

An alternative to combat must be found. The causes of Martin Luther
King and Gandhi prevailed without their resorting to barbarism. It
took _sacrifice_ and commitment to a noble ideal, but they would have
ultimately failed without the weight of public sentiment being brought
to bear in their behalf.

Isn't it time we outgrew our reprehensible past behavior, and learned
to walk fully upright?

If our species doesn't learn to respond passively to attack, the human
race is doomed to a life of war. Isn't that obvious?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:11:21 -0800, Montblack wrote
(in article >):

> ("Christopher Campbell wrote)
>> And above all, try taking a course on cultural tolerance.
>
>
> I don't have a wife in this fight...
> (Oh, come on. That's funny)
>
> ...but, it seems to me, not picking on you Mormie, people tend to turn the
> volume up to 11 (immediately) when confronted. There is a distinct lack of
> "proportionality"(?) going on these days - everywhere. "You diss'd my
> shoes" - BANG!
>

You have not had people smearing your place of worship with human excrement,
breaking the windows and smashing thousands of dollars worth of AV equipment.
You have not had children come home crying from school because people told
them they had horns and tails. You have not received a failing grade in a
class because the teacher did not like 'Mormons.' You were not denied a PhD
and have your professor at Purdue tell you that you would never get a PhD or
any other graduate degree, no matter what you did, because of your religion.
You did not have your commanding officer in the military tell all of the
other men to stay away from you and tell you that he thought you were a
coward who would not fight because you were a 'Mormon.'

All of those things have happened to me or to my children.

One of my ancestors had her house burned down four times. She gave birth on a
sand bar in the middle of the Mississippi in the dead of winter with nothing
but a sheet to protect her because the governor of her state had ordered her
"exterminated," like an insect. Her brother was shot at Hahn's Mill, along
with 16 others, and 21 other unarmed men were wounded by mobs largely led by
so-called 'rationalists.'

Anther ancestor was beaten and forced to eat axle grease in the middle of
winter and left for dead. He never fully recovered and eventually did die. He
was saved only from immediate hanging by the leader of the mob, another
ancestor, incidentally.

No, Larry is a bigot. In my mind he is no different nor more enlightened than
any of these other people.

> Bigoted? Hate?
>
> How about silly and confused? That might show some tolerance for Larry's
> ...culture. I don't even want to know. <g>
>
> http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon013.htm
> This is all new to me. This was the most "interesting" of the Google
> returns.
>

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. These people are just
strange. Some of them say things that make you wonder if they ever have had
any contact with the Church at all, like claiming to have been a "child
preacher," as one notable personality once did. The Church has no "child
preachers."


> And to think, my entire elementary school had to eat fish sticks on Friday
> because of us Catholic kids. Hehehe.
>

Actually, Iiked the fish sticks.

> My plan for New Orleans - 2005:
> Send in the National Guard?
> Hell no. We're sending in the Mormons!
> (It would halve cost 1/10th as much and gotten 10 times the results!)
>

Actually, they did. My own son recently was there on a volunteer work crew.

>
> MontBlack and MontWhite :-) (-:
> For the record: I am 100% in favor of polygamy ...and good luck to those
> brave souls who try it.
> (I call it: A Lawyer's Paradise)
>
>

No kidding. However, I could see certain advantages. More people bringing an
income into the household, more hands to take care of things, etc. My biggest
concern would be how long it would be before they figured out that they
didn't need me. :-)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:25:28 -0800, Larry Dighera wrote
(in article >):

> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:26:21 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
>> past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
>> Cole, etc.
>
> Can there be too many times? Aggression only spawns more aggression.
> Isn't that the wisdom behind Christ's words?
>

You would sound a lot more sincere if you did not regard belief in Christ as
"irrational."

>> IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
>> again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.
>
> That's not a very enlightened attitude, IMO.

No, I do not think it is, either. However, there is a difference between
forgiveness and defending yourself, your family, and your property. You can
forgive a thief, but you don't have to let him rob you. You can forgive a
murderer, but you don't have to let him kill you or your family.

But I think there is a line between defending yourself from an immediate
threat and going out and destroying all those who simply *might* be a threat
some day.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:10:33 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >In article >,
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:26:21 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> >> > wrote in
> >> >:
> >>
> >> >It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
> >> >past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
> >> >Cole, etc.
> >>
> >> Can there be too many times? Aggression only spawns more aggression.
> >> Isn't that the wisdom behind Christ's words?
> >>
> >> >IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
> >> >again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.
> >>
> >> That's not a very enlightened attitude, IMO.
> >
> >I think that it is a very enlightened approach -- it assures survival to
> >promote further "enlightened attitudes."
> >
> >J.C. never mentioned what you do after the other guy hits you again.
> >
> >Some people and groups respect only superior force.
>
> An alternative to combat must be found. The causes of Martin Luther
> King and Gandhi prevailed without their resorting to barbarism. It
> took _sacrifice_ and commitment to a noble ideal, but they would have
> ultimately failed without the weight of public sentiment being brought
> to bear in their behalf.
>
> Isn't it time we outgrew our reprehensible past behavior, and learned
> to walk fully upright?
>
> If our species doesn't learn to respond passively to attack, the human
> race is doomed to a life of war. Isn't that obvious?

Well -- the first order of business is to understand your adversaries.
If their basic attitude is barbarism, then that is all they will
understand. Isn't that obvious?

Remember -- MLK and Ghandi were dealing with adversaries who operated
from a basically civilized point of view. AQ does not -- they only want
dominance and to kill "infidels."

[[email protected]]

>We are fighting an enemy who has no problem and in fact has it as their
>primary tactic to kill civilians. They also have no problem sheilding
>themselves with non-combatants, including children. If we don't have the
>stomach to attack them whereever they may be we need to call it quits and
>pull every soldier, sailor and airman we have around the world back home.
>Because we can't win or for that matter defend ourselves.
>

Golda Meier has been quoted as saying, 'We can forgive them for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill there's'.
We are fighting an enemy with different values than ours. We need to adjust to that.

[Jay Honeck]

> Golda Meier has been quoted as saying, 'We can forgive them for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill there's'.
> We are fighting an enemy with different values than ours. We need to adjust to that.

That's one of the most enlightened quotes I've ever read -- and it
truly, sadly, sums up the war we're in.

Unfortunately the electorate is too busy worrying about Paris Hilton's
latest diet to notice. By the time they *do* notice, it may be too
late.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bill Watson]

wrote:
>> We are fighting an enemy who has no problem and in fact has it as their
>> primary tactic to kill civilians. They also have no problem sheilding
>> themselves with non-combatants, including children. If we don't have the
>> stomach to attack them whereever they may be we need to call it quits and
>> pull every soldier, sailor and airman we have around the world back home.
>> Because we can't win or for that matter defend ourselves.
>>
>
> Golda Meier has been quoted as saying, "We can forgive them for killing our
> children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill there's".

> We are fighting an enemy with different values than ours. We need to adjust to that.
>
I'm not sure I get this quote... that's seems to be one of the most
convoluted rationales for revenge I've heard - but I must be missing an
obvious point. Please explain. Seriously
(I did some editing to get the quote and the comment separated)

[Jose]

> "Where the choice is set between cowardice and violence...

Non-violence is not always cowardace.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bill Watson]

Well, it seems pretty well established that the whole thing is done with
smoke and computers today. The original Gooney Bird setup sounds like
it required stick and shooting skills but that's a long time ago.

Regarding commercial pylon turns. Jay, these are actually kind of fun
to learn to do. Great for 'shooting' some ground object with a camera
aimed at your wing tip. With a wind, it's the only to keep a fixed
camera on a fixed ground point while turning

I just looked it up in the Airplane Flying Handbook where it describes
2 commercial pylon turn manuevers. One is "Eights Around Pylons", the
second is "Eights-on-Pylons" or "Pylon Eights". The first corresponds
to the turns around a point you learn in primary. The second is the
interesting one. Instead of varying your bank to compensate for wind
drift at a constant altitude, you vary your altitude and airspeed to
keep the wing tip on the pylon. But it can only be done at the "pivotal
altitude" that corresponds to your airspeed.

Easier to have someone demo it than to read about it. I learned it
during my commercial and it's probably my most performed manuever when
giving someone a ride. As in, "let's take a look at that building over
there". I do a "Turn-on-a-Point" to give my passenger a perfect view of
the building sitting under my tip thru as many turns as we want. Of
course you will put the object on top of your tip.

It's just a neat one to know and learn.

Dave S wrote:
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Jay
>
> If you can fly to commercial standards you should be able to perform
> the maneuver in question: Pylon turns.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bill Watson wrote:
> wrote:
>>> We are fighting an enemy who has no problem and in fact has it as
>>> their primary tactic to kill civilians. They also have no problem
>>> sheilding themselves with non-combatants, including children. If we
>>> don't have the stomach to attack them whereever they may be we need
>>> to call it quits and pull every soldier, sailor and airman we have
>>> around the world back home. Because we can't win or for that matter
>>> defend ourselves.
>>
>> Golda Meier has been quoted as saying, "We can forgive them for
>> killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us
>> kill there's". We are fighting an enemy with different values than
>> ours. We need to adjust to that.
> I'm not sure I get this quote... that's seems to be one of the most
> convoluted rationales for revenge I've heard - but I must be missing
> an obvious point. Please explain. Seriously
> (I did some editing to get the quote and the comment separated)


I hardly speak for Golda or the nation of Israel but I think she means that
it is easier to forgive evil than to forgive being forced to do evil.

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On 11 Jan 2007 19:59:21 -0800, "Marco Leon" > wrote
> in om>:
>
>
>>Wow Larry, it only took the very next post for you to take the thread
>>off-topic commenting on none of Jay's aviation-related questions.
>
>
> It was Mr. Honeck who expressed an erroneous statement, and I sought
> to correct it. Would you prefer to read inaccurate statements or
> truth?

We prefer the truth, so please stop posting. :-)

Matt

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
<...> Bush would have followed the enlightened teachings of his savior,
> instead of using his faith and irrational beliefs to cause
> reinforcement of negative world opinion toward the US at this critical
> time in history. Our nation would today enjoy the world's public
> support, instead of it's fear and distrust, if Bush had heeded the
> WRITTEN words of Christ, and been capable of appreciating the futility
> of this war, instead of listening to the irrational VOICES IN HIS
> HEAD.
<...>

It turns out that it's not all W's fault...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43189

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[gatt]

"Christopher Campbell @hotmail.com>" <christophercampbell<deletethis> wrote
in message news:2007011108475575249-
>> Welcome to World War III.
>
> Quit spouting the terrorist line, Larry, or tell us how to fight a war
> without killing civilians.

The idea of the Ethiopians pushing AQ to the sea, telling them to fight or
die and then sitting back as the gunships annihilated them must cause guys
like Patton and Alexander to rattle in their coffins, but in light of the
fact that the AQ targets weren't even apparently in the region...

It kinda makes me wonder who Ethiopa and the Somali government conned us
into killing for them.

-c

[Danny Deger]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
snip

> Remember -- MLK and Ghandi were dealing with adversaries who operated
> from a basically civilized point of view. AQ does not -- they only want
> dominance and to kill "infidels."

Islam does teach to not make friends with infidels, but it does not teach to
kill infidels. It teaches to kill enemies of Islam.

Danny Deger

P.S. Not Muslim. I am Methodist but have read the Koran.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:29:41 -0600, in
>, Danny Deger wrote:
> Islam does teach to not make friends with infidels, but it does not
> teach to kill infidels. It teaches to kill enemies of Islam.

So, all it takes is one camel ****in' Bedoin religious leader to declare
that infidels are enemies of Islam and it's open season on us... Fair
enough as long as we can declare open season on them... Perhaps we can
start out with nuking Mecca during Ramadan... That should be good for
about 2 million of them... Unfortunately, there's probably another 1.6
billion of them that would need to be eliminated in order to remove
that blight from our planet... Of course, the Texas solutions can be
basically summed up this way:

"I've got a truck and a chain -- I think we can find a road with your name
on it"

Hmmm... A quick search of StreetAtlas didn't come up with any streets with
Mohammed in their names... Damn, we might have a problem with this one...

[Jay Beckman]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:29:41 -0600, in
> >, Danny Deger wrote:
>> Islam does teach to not make friends with infidels, but it does not
>> teach to kill infidels. It teaches to kill enemies of Islam.
>
> So, all it takes is one camel ****in' Bedoin religious leader to declare
> that infidels are enemies of Islam and it's open season on us... Fair
> enough as long as we can declare open season on them... Perhaps we can
> start out with nuking Mecca during Ramadan...

Whoa up there cowboy...

Wrong Moslem holy festival. They aren't in Mecca for Ramadan, they're there
during the Hajj.

Jay B
(Resident, Tehran, Iran, 1976-77)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:29:41 -0800, Danny Deger wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> snip
>
>> Remember -- MLK and Ghandi were dealing with adversaries who operated
>> from a basically civilized point of view. AQ does not -- they only want
>> dominance and to kill "infidels."
>
> Islam does teach to not make friends with infidels, but it does not teach to
> kill infidels. It teaches to kill enemies of Islam.
>
> Danny Deger
>
> P.S. Not Muslim. I am Methodist but have read the Koran.
>
>

Like those "peaceful" Muslims who rioted when Pope Benedict mentioned the
violence of their history? They demanded his head, burned churches, and
threatened to kill people until the Pope acknowledged that they were
"peaceful." The same with the Mohammed cartoons. Muslims were so incensed at
being told that they were not peaceful that violent riots swept the whole
world for weeks. That kind of "peaceful?" Somebody in the Islamic world maybe
needs to get a dictionary and find out what "peaceful" means.

[Montblack]

("C J Campbell" wrote)
> Like those "peaceful" Muslims who rioted when Pope Benedict mentioned the
> violence of their history? They demanded his head, burned churches, and
> threatened to kill people until the Pope acknowledged that they were
> "peaceful."


"Threatened" to kill people?

Threatened???


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Richard Riley" wrote)
> So - Israel is attacked by Arafat and his groups. Israeli children
> are killed. Israel can forgive Arafat for killing Israeli children.
>
> But in the fight Israel also kills Arabs, and their children. They
> have to, in order to survive. They don't want to, but they are given
> no choice.
>
> They cannot forgive the man (or men) who forced them to kill Arab
> children.
>
> It's not intended as a justification for further violence against
> Arabs. In fact, it assumes that in some future time the violence will
> have ended, and THEN the question of forgiveness can be addressed.


I'll take it from here, Richard.

O'Brien:
"It's not you I hate, Cardassian - I hate what I became because of you."

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68478.html
Star Trek: The Next Generation
The Wounded
Stardate 44429.6
Season 4, Episode: 12


Montblack

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:08 -0700, in
>, Jay Beckman wrote:
> Whoa up there cowboy...
>
> Wrong Moslem holy festival. They aren't in Mecca for Ramadan, they're there
> during the Hajj.

Damn, nearly wasted a nuke... Thanks for the correction...

[Jay Honeck]

> Like those "peaceful" Muslims who rioted when Pope Benedict mentioned the
> violence of their history? They demanded his head, burned churches, and
> threatened to kill people until the Pope acknowledged that they were
> "peaceful." The same with the Mohammed cartoons. Muslims were so incensed at
> being told that they were not peaceful that violent riots swept the whole
> world for weeks. That kind of "peaceful?" Somebody in the Islamic world maybe
> needs to get a dictionary and find out what "peaceful" means.

This type of "large group" irrational behavior is not uncommon, even in
our country.

Look at the "race riots" in the 1960s. Black people were so incensed
by their mistreatment that they....burned their own neighborhoods and
businesses to the ground.

Logical? Nope.

Worse, this set of actions set back race relations for at least another
generation or two -- not their intended result, I'm sure.

"Group-think" is the scariest of all human interactions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Danny Deger wrote:
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> snip
>
>
>>Remember -- MLK and Ghandi were dealing with adversaries who operated
>>from a basically civilized point of view. AQ does not -- they only want
>>dominance and to kill "infidels."
>
>
> Islam does teach to not make friends with infidels, but it does not teach to
> kill infidels. It teaches to kill enemies of Islam.

When you define everyone who isn't Muslim as an enemy of Islam, however,
you can justify pretty much killing everyone.

Matt

[Jose]

> "Group-think" is the scariest of all human interactions.

And religion is the scariest of all group-think.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[601XL Builder]

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> Wrong Moslem holy festival. They aren't in Mecca for Ramadan, they're there
> during the Hajj.
>
> Jay B
> (Resident, Tehran, Iran, 1976-77)
>
>

Since we are picking nits here. The Hajj is the pilgrimage to Mecca that
each Muslim is duty bound to make at least once in their life time. It
is done during the Muslim month of Dhu al-Hijjah.

Gig G
(Resident, Bahrain, summers of 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81)

[601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Look at the "race riots" in the 1960s. Black people were so incensed
> by their mistreatment that they....burned their own neighborhoods and
> businesses to the ground.

1960's Ha what about the riots and luting post Rodney King. Or just a
little over a year ago In New Orleans.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:36:07 -0800, Jose wrote
(in article >):

>> "Group-think" is the scariest of all human interactions.
>
> And religion is the scariest of all group-think.
>

Nonsense. Even the Moslems haven't killed as many people as Stalin or Pol
Pot, and those guys were atheists. When atheists start talking about teaching
your children your religious values is "child abuse," that people who believe
in God should not be allowed to vote or assemble or hold office, that people
who have "irrational beliefs" should be locked up on reservations or forcibly
sterilized, then you realize that it is not a problem of religion, but that
there is some innate desire in men to tell you what to believe, forcibly if
necessary.

[Vaughn Simon]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
> Nonsense. Even the Moslems haven't killed as many people as Stalin or Pol
> Pot, and those guys were atheists. When atheists start talking about teaching
> your children your religious values is "child abuse," that people who believe
> in God ...

Wow! This conversation has wandered a long way from piloting an AC-130.

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> This type of "large group" irrational behavior is not uncommon, even in
> our country.
>
> Look at the "race riots" in the 1960s. Black people were so incensed
> by their mistreatment that they....burned their own neighborhoods and
> businesses to the ground.

look at the riots that occur after major sporting events...

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

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> "Group-think" is the scariest of all human interactions.
>
>
> And religion is the scariest of all group-think.

Especially the atheist religion.

Matt

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:56:40 -0800, Bob Noel wrote
(in article >):

> In article om>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> This type of "large group" irrational behavior is not uncommon, even in
>> our country.
>>
>> Look at the "race riots" in the 1960s. Black people were so incensed
>> by their mistreatment that they....burned their own neighborhoods and
>> businesses to the ground.
>
> look at the riots that occur after major sporting events...
>
>

Well, soccer is a religion, too. :-)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:56:40 -0800, Bob Noel wrote
(in article >):

> In article om>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> This type of "large group" irrational behavior is not uncommon, even in
>> our country.
>>
>> Look at the "race riots" in the 1960s. Black people were so incensed
>> by their mistreatment that they....burned their own neighborhoods and
>> businesses to the ground.
>
> look at the riots that occur after major sporting events...
>
>

Actually, it was Earl Pitts who noticed that soccer was a form of Devil
worship:

1) Soccer was introduced in the US about the time that prayer was taken out
of the schools. Coincidence? I think not.

2) Soccer denies children the use of their God-given hands.

3) The constant pounding of soccer balls on heads causes brain damage and
leaves people more susceptible to the Devil.

4) All the countries that are good at soccer (where they deceitfully call it
"football") are full of godless Communists, liberals, and/or Catholics.

5) Soccer balls got them pentagrams printed all over them.

Earl Pitts -- whatever happened to him?

[Jose]

> Nonsense. Even the Moslems haven't killed as many people as Stalin or Pol
> Pot, and those guys were atheists.

All religions put together is what I had in mind. It makes little sense
to split one brand of superstition apart from another one.

> When atheists start talking about [doing bad stuff]...

.... then they are doing bad stuff. Athiests are people too. They
aren't immune to evil, nor to groupthink. However they are at a
distinct disadvantage in pulling it off.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:56:40 -0800, Bob Noel wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>>In article om>,
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This type of "large group" irrational behavior is not uncommon, even in
>>>our country.
>>>
>>>Look at the "race riots" in the 1960s. Black people were so incensed
>>>by their mistreatment that they....burned their own neighborhoods and
>>>businesses to the ground.
>>
>>look at the riots that occur after major sporting events...
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, it was Earl Pitts who noticed that soccer was a form of Devil
> worship:
>
> 1) Soccer was introduced in the US about the time that prayer was taken out
> of the schools. Coincidence? I think not.
>
> 2) Soccer denies children the use of their God-given hands.
>
> 3) The constant pounding of soccer balls on heads causes brain damage and
> leaves people more susceptible to the Devil.
>
> 4) All the countries that are good at soccer (where they deceitfully call it
> "football") are full of godless Communists, liberals, and/or Catholics.
>
> 5) Soccer balls got them pentagrams printed all over them.
>
> Earl Pitts -- whatever happened to him?
>

He still writes a monthly column that appears in my monthly newsletter
from my electric company. I don't know what else he is up to. He's a
hoot for sure.


Matt

[Don Tabor]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:18:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>If our species doesn't learn to respond passively to attack, the human
>race is doomed to a life of war. Isn't that obvious?

If we respond passively to attack, we are doomed to choose between
death and slavery.

Responding to attacks with INADEQUATE violence is what leads to a life
of war.

There was no fourth Punic War.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[mike regish]

They didn't kill anybody in the name of athiesm.

mike

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
>>
>
> Nonsense. Even the Moslems haven't killed as many people as Stalin or Pol
> Pot, and those guys were atheists.

[mike regish]

Look up the word, will you?

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Especially the atheist religion.
>
> Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-01-13, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Especially the atheist religion.

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jose]

> Being an athiest takes work and commitment. You have to be offended
> any time you see a religous symbol. You have to seek out the faithful
> and insult and denegrate them.

Huh? Being an athiest requires not believing in god. It is being an
activist that takes work and commitment.

> Being passionate about God is a religion, no matter how many Gods you
> think there might be, from zero to Olympus.

Uh, no again. Being passionate may make you an activist. The two are
not related at all.

> Scientologists don't
> believe in God or Gods, and they're a religion.

No, they're a scam with tax benefits.

> Not collecting stamps is more like not caring if there's a God. Call
> us Apathists.

Strike three, but if you'd like to slice some hairs (which are sometimes
worth slicing), my particular dissection is:

theist: Believes that god exists.
nontheist: Does not believe that god exists.
athiest: Believes that god does not exist.
agnostic: Is not sure that the gods of any existing religions are real.

evangelical: one who promotes their beliefs attempting to convince
others to "see the light". These beliefs may be religious or otherwise;
though the word has religious connotations it can be aptly used for any
set of beliefs.

activist: one who fights for the rights of a particular group, whether
it be a religious group or not.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[mike regish]

Not until fairly recently.

mike

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:27:15 -0000, Dylan Smith

You have to be offended
> any time you see a religous symbol. You have to seek out the faithful
> and insult and denegrate them.

[mike regish]

Outstandingly put, Jose.

mike

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

>> Being an athiest takes work and commitment. You have to be offended
>> any time you see a religous symbol. You have to seek out the faithful
>> and insult and denegrate them.
>
> Huh? Being an athiest requires not believing in god. It is being an
> activist that takes work and commitment.
>
>> Being passionate about God is a religion, no matter how many Gods you
>> think there might be, from zero to Olympus.
>
> Uh, no again. Being passionate may make you an activist. The two are not
> related at all.
>
>> Scientologists don't
>> believe in God or Gods, and they're a religion.
>
> No, they're a scam with tax benefits.
>
>> Not collecting stamps is more like not caring if there's a God. Call
>> us Apathists.
>
> Strike three, but if you'd like to slice some hairs (which are sometimes
> worth slicing), my particular dissection is:
>
> theist: Believes that god exists.
> nontheist: Does not believe that god exists.
> athiest: Believes that god does not exist.
> agnostic: Is not sure that the gods of any existing religions are real.
>
> evangelical: one who promotes their beliefs attempting to convince others
> to "see the light". These beliefs may be religious or otherwise; though
> the word has religious connotations it can be aptly used for any set of
> beliefs.
>
> activist: one who fights for the rights of a particular group, whether it
> be a religious group or not.
>
> Jose
> --
> He who laughs, lasts.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:


> theist: Believes that god exists.
> nontheist: Does not believe that god exists.
> athiest: Believes that god does not exist.
> agnostic: Is not sure that the gods of any existing religions are real.

You do, of course, know about the dilemma of the dyslexic, agnostic
insomniac, don't you?

He lies awake in bed all night wondering whether or not there is a Dog.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:38:46 -0800, mike regish wrote
(in article >):


>>
>> Nonsense. Even the Moslems haven't killed as many people as Stalin or Pol
>> Pot, and those guys were atheists.
>
> They didn't kill anybody in the name of athiesm.
>
> mike
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> e.com...
>>>

Actually, yes they did.

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2007-01-13, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Especially the atheist religion.
>
>
> If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
>

Not even close to being a good analogy. Religion involves a set of
beliefs. Athesim involves a set of beliefs. A hobby is an activity.

Try again.


Matt

[Jim Logajan]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> On 2007-01-13, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>Especially the atheist religion.
>>
>> If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
>
> Not even close to being a good analogy. Religion involves a set of
> beliefs. Athesim involves a set of beliefs. A hobby is an activity.
>
> Try again.

(A) Fred believes there are Unicorns on Pluto.
(B) Wilma believes there are Minotaurs on Neptune.
(C) Barney does not believe there are Unicorns on Pluto or Minitaurs on
Neptune.

Therefore Fred, Wilma, and Barney all have beliefs and we can treat all of
their beliefs as being equally valid.

The above line of reasoning appears to be what motivates the view that a
non-belief is a belief. It seems to be an attempt to make all the
statements appear equivalent for the purposes of establishing their truth
so that Barney must also present evidence for his case. (Pity poor Barney!)

There are an awfully large (possibly infinite) set of arbitrary claims or
statements one can make about the universe (only some of which are true) so
the logical thing to do is to not believe those assertions until the people
making the assertions have provided some supporting evidence.

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On 2007-01-13, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Especially the atheist religion.
>>>
>>>If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
>>
>>Not even close to being a good analogy. Religion involves a set of
>>beliefs. Athesim involves a set of beliefs. A hobby is an activity.
>>
>>Try again.
>
>
> (A) Fred believes there are Unicorns on Pluto.
> (B) Wilma believes there are Minotaurs on Neptune.
> (C) Barney does not believe there are Unicorns on Pluto or Minitaurs on
> Neptune.
>
> Therefore Fred, Wilma, and Barney all have beliefs and we can treat all of
> their beliefs as being equally valid.
>
> The above line of reasoning appears to be what motivates the view that a
> non-belief is a belief. It seems to be an attempt to make all the
> statements appear equivalent for the purposes of establishing their truth
> so that Barney must also present evidence for his case. (Pity poor Barney!)
>
> There are an awfully large (possibly infinite) set of arbitrary claims or
> statements one can make about the universe (only some of which are true) so
> the logical thing to do is to not believe those assertions until the people
> making the assertions have provided some supporting evidence.

Not at all. I never made any assertion about the validity of the
atheist religion, I just asserted that it is about beliefs. Validity is
a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Matt

[Jose]

> Religion involves a set of beliefs. Athesim involves a set of beliefs.

Flying through the air involves a set of beliefs. Therefore aviation is
a religion.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

Richard Riley > wrote:
> All right, then what am I.
>
> I don't care if any God is real, what his form is, what he likes or
> dislikes, or anything associated with that belief.
....
>
> Now, whatever label you chose to put on me, you're free to do so -
> because I don't care. I call myself an apathist because it often gets
> the idea across.

If you start a non-profit organization and take advantage of its tax status
then you're an opportunist and realist. ;-)

http://www.apathist.org/

[mike regish]

Actually, no they didn't.

mike

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
>>
> > They didn't kill anybody in the name of athiesm.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> e.com...
>>>>
>
> Actually, yes they did.
>

[Jose]

> All right, then what am I.

You're an apathist. I have no problem with your term.

Within my lexicon, you'd probably also be nontheist. If you believed
that god existed, you'd care. (At least for any of the gods proffered
up by religions with which I am familiar). Since you don't care, you
probably don't believe.

More to the point, you'd be an ostrich. Although you may not personally
care about the 4th district city council seat in Solok, it also doesn't
affect you personally. But, suppose that 4th district city council
somehow became the one that the FAA delegated all non-commercial
aviation rulemaking to... would you still not care? (This is not all
that farfetched - "Stop the Noise" is based somewhere, and could
concieveably have far reaching effects on your flying.)

People who promote superstition have a far-reaching influence on the
United States. They probably have a far-reaching influence on many
other countries, maybe yours. In some places they dictate the
curriculum taught to nacent voters. They decide whether certain
research should not be done because it "defies god". They control who
can marry whom. They blow up clinics whose policies don't agree with
their particular holy papers.

=That=, I care about.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:10:34 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>All right, then what am I.


Ummm.... Not vulnerable to the influences of organized religion? :-)

[Jose]

> I neither believe nor disbelieve.

Thus, you don't believe. That's what I call "nontheist". You also
don't disbelieve. That's ok too.

> I don't know if the Newport RI
> ladies club had a meeting October 3rd 1909, I'm not going to change
> what I do either way. The same with God.

Do you care whether other people's belief in god prevents you from flying?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[mike regish]

Unfortunately, 9/11 throws that idea out the window.

But even that is just an extreme and undeniable case.

mike

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ummm.... Not vulnerable to the influences of organized religion? :-)
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-01-15, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Not even close to being a good analogy. Religion involves a set of
> beliefs. Athesim involves a set of beliefs. A hobby is an activity.

A religion involves a hell of a lot more than merely a set of beliefs. A
religion also generally involves significant activity. It's quite
distinct from non-belief.

Try again!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de