Blue Angels plane crashes

[Mxsmanic]

See

http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> See
>
> http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>

aren't you the little ray of sunshine.

What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,


Bertie

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > See
>
> >http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>
> aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>
> What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,
>
> Bertie


Some times people like you make me ashamed to be part of this group.
Grow up, and show some sensitivity to an event that took a pilot's
life.

My prayers go out to the victim's family.

[The Old Bloke[_4_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > See
>>
>> >http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>
>> aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>>
>> What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Some times people like you make me ashamed to be part of this group.
> Grow up, and show some sensitivity to an event that took a pilot's
> life.
>
> My prayers go out to the victim's family.
>
>
Agreed.

[EatMe]

On Apr 21, 5:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > See
>
> >http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>
> aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>
> What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,
>
> Bertie

Shut up for once, fjuckwit.

You used to be amusing and sometimes, occasionally, on topic.

Now your just a tiresome boor.

Get lost, asswipe.

[Bush]

Please do not cross-post to this newsgroup. Complaints filed. Yea!

On 21 Apr 2007 15:24:43 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:

>On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> See
>>
>> http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>
>
>aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>
>What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,
>
>
>Bertie

[Happy Dog]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > See
>>
>> >http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>
>> aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>>
>> What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Some times people like you make me ashamed to be part of this group.
> Grow up, and show some sensitivity to an event that took a pilot's
> life.
>
> My prayers go out to the victim's family.

Prayers to whom?

Do we pilots have a patron saint?

m

[Mike Hunt]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> See
>
> http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>

Interesting quote here:

"On an F-18, you have two motors, and if they take [a bird] in the
engine, it could cause engine failure and shut that down," he said. He
said the plane is capable of flying in excess of 450 mph.

An F-18 can fly in excess of 450 MPH.. Who would've guessed?

[Mike Hunt]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>See
>>
>>>http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>
>>aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>>
>>What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,
>>
>>Bertie
>
>
>
> Some times people like you make me ashamed to be part of this group.
> Grow up, and show some sensitivity to an event that took a pilot's
> life.
>
> My prayers go out to the victim's family.

With military people dying everyday in hostile actions elsewhere in the
world, one death from an stunt flying aviator really doesn't make that
much difference.

[Mike Hunt]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>See
>>>
>>>>http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>>
>>>aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>>>
>>>What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>>
>>Some times people like you make me ashamed to be part of this group.
>>Grow up, and show some sensitivity to an event that took a pilot's
>>life.
>>
>>My prayers go out to the victim's family.
>
>
> Prayers to whom?
>
> Do we pilots have a patron saint?
>

Anthony "Goose" Edwards

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:00:19 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
wrote:
>
>With military people dying everyday in hostile actions elsewhere in the
>world, one death from an stunt flying aviator really doesn't make that
>much difference.

What a truly stupid thing to say.

[JohnT]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
m...
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Apr 21, 6:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>> On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>
>>> > See
>>>
>>> >http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>>
>>> aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>>>
>>> What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>
>> Some times people like you make me ashamed to be part of this group.
>> Grow up, and show some sensitivity to an event that took a pilot's
>> life.
>>
>> My prayers go out to the victim's family.
>
> Prayers to whom?
>
> Do we pilots have a patron saint?
>

Saint Joseph of Cupertino

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino

HTH.

JohnT

[mike regish]

I notice we're lumped in there with "people with mental handicap"

mike

"JohnT" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Do we pilots have a patron saint?
>>
>
> Saint Joseph of Cupertino
>
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino
>
> HTH.
>
> JohnT
>

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Hunt wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> See
>>
>> http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>
>
> Interesting quote here:
>
> "On an F-18, you have two motors, and if they take [a bird] in the
> engine, it could cause engine failure and shut that down," he said. He
> said the plane is capable of flying in excess of 450 mph.
>
> An F-18 can fly in excess of 450 MPH.. Who would've guessed?

Yes, and I've never seen a motor propelling a jet before either...

Matt

[john smith[_2_]]

> >> Do we pilots have a patron saint?

> > Saint Joseph of Cupertino
> > see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino

> I notice we're lumped in there with "people with mental handicap"

The patron saint of air travelers, aviators, people with a mental
handicap, and bad students.

[Kingfish]

On Apr 22, 3:58 am, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > See
>
> >http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>
> Interesting quote here:
>
> "On an F-18, you have two motors, and if they take [a bird] in the
> engine, it could cause engine failure and shut that down," he said. He
> said the plane is capable of flying in excess of 450 mph.
>
> An F-18 can fly in excess of 450 MPH.. Who would've guessed?

Those CNN guys *are* slick aren't they? 1.8 Mach IS faster than
450mph. My Convert-O-Matic program sez it's actually 1,383mph. (Mach
speed figure is from Boeing)

[Mxsmanic]

Happy Dog writes:

> Do we pilots have a patron saint?

Our Lady of Loreto

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> The patron saint of air travelers, aviators, people with a mental
> handicap, and bad students.

The patron saint of pilots is Our Lady of Loreto, in Roman Catholicism.

"Our Lady" is another name for the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, in RC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> What a truly stupid thing to say.

I don't see anything stupid about it. It's important to keep things in
perspective.

I'm always amazed by how skewed the perceptions of death can be. When 32
people are shot by a nutcase, it becomes a Major Media Event and a national
day of mourning. When 150,000 are killed by an atomic bomb in a distant
foreign country, it is a cause for celebration, with not a single tear shed.

People become indignant when others refuse to wail with grief over the deaths
of those the former consider important, but they simultaneously show precisely
the same indifference towards the untold millions of others who are dying
throughout the world. It's an extreme case of tunnel vision, and it's a form
of irrational emotion that is dangerous to society.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mike Hunt]

NoTrollz wrote:
> B A R R Y > wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:00:19 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>With military people dying everyday in hostile actions elsewhere in the
>>>world, one death from an stunt flying aviator really doesn't make that
>>>much difference.
>>
>>What a truly stupid thing to say.
>
>
> From what I've read he's the king of saying stupid things.

It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others dying
in the military.

[Mike Hunt]

Kingfish wrote:

> On Apr 22, 3:58 am, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>See
>>
>>>http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>
>>Interesting quote here:
>>
>>"On an F-18, you have two motors, and if they take [a bird] in the
>>engine, it could cause engine failure and shut that down," he said. He
>>said the plane is capable of flying in excess of 450 mph.
>>
>>An F-18 can fly in excess of 450 MPH.. Who would've guessed?
>
>
> Those CNN guys *are* slick aren't they? 1.8 Mach IS faster than
> 450mph. My Convert-O-Matic program sez it's actually 1,383mph. (Mach
> speed figure is from Boeing)
>

Actually, the speed of sound (Mach) varies. MPH doesn't.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y writes:
>
>> What a truly stupid thing to say.
>
> I don't see anything stupid about it. It's important to keep things in
> perspective.
>
> I'm always amazed by how skewed the perceptions of death can be. When 32
> people are shot by a nutcase, it becomes a Major Media Event and a
> national
> day of mourning. When 150,000 are killed by an atomic bomb in a distant
> foreign country, it is a cause for celebration, with not a single tear
> shed.
>
> People become indignant when others refuse to wail with grief over the
> deaths
> of those the former consider important, but they simultaneously show
> precisely
> the same indifference towards the untold millions of others who are dying
> throughout the world. It's an extreme case of tunnel vision, and it's a
> form
> of irrational emotion that is dangerous to society.
>

Spoken by the poster child for tunnel vision.

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:01 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
wrote:

>
>It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others dying
>in the military.

And no less, either.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> When 32
> people are shot by a nutcase, it becomes a Major Media Event and a national
> day of mourning. When 150,000 are killed by an atomic bomb in a distant
> foreign country, it is a cause for celebration, with not a single tear shed.

And the fact that the two are separated by 60 years of history, two
major wars, countless smaller police actions, and an enormous paradigm
shift both in how the media covers a story and the role society expects
and accepts media coverage has *_ABSOLUTELY_* no bearing on that, right?

Or that the two had completely opposite purposes, right?

You're treading dangerously close to Godwin's Law.

> People become indignant when others refuse to wail with grief over the deaths
> of those the former consider important

They only asked that you not be an insensitive lout. That was, obviously
enough, too much.

> but they simultaneously show precisely
> the same indifference towards the untold millions of others who are dying
> throughout the world.

"One death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic". Heaven forbid that a
group of pilots should care when a highly-skilled member of their ilk
perishes doing his job more than the deaths of unrelated college students.

> It's an extreme case of tunnel vision, and it's a form
> of irrational emotion that is dangerous to society.

Socrates said it best.

"A little learning is commendable; a little knowledge, the most
dangerous thing of all".

Reflect on that while you reconsider you statement (as if you could).

TheSmokingGnu

Edit: cross-posted again. If you're going to act like a porn spammer, at
least put in a few links or something.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> And no less, either.

Someone dies somewhere every second. Do you mourn them all equally?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

TheSmokingGnu writes:

> And the fact that the two are separated by 60 years of history, two
> major wars, countless smaller police actions, and an enormous paradigm
> shift both in how the media covers a story and the role society expects
> and accepts media coverage has *_ABSOLUTELY_* no bearing on that, right?

Right.

> Or that the two had completely opposite purposes, right?

Right.

> You're treading dangerously close to Godwin's Law.

I'm recognizing death for what it is, and the value of life for what it is.

Lots of people die. My relationship to them does not determine the importance
or unimportance of their deaths. At least I recognize that, and I do not try
to rationalize any preferences I may personally have in order to deny their
injustice.

> They only asked that you not be an insensitive lout. That was, obviously
> enough, too much.

Are they the same ones who clamor for the killing of people they consider
their enemies?

> "One death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic". Heaven forbid that a
> group of pilots should care when a highly-skilled member of their ilk
> perishes doing his job more than the deaths of unrelated college students.

They are welcome to care. It's only when they try to pretend that they are
not showing favoritism that there is a problem. Certain deaths may be more
important to them--but that doesn't make those deaths more important
objectively, and if there is insensitivity in anything, it is in denying this
reality.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Right.

You cannot recognize the effect to which social precepts shape the
perceptions and reaction of society?


> Lots of people die. My relationship to them does not determine the importance
> or unimportance of their deaths.

Of course not. They're all equally unimportant to you.

> Certain deaths may be more
> important to them--but that doesn't make those deaths more important
> objectively, and if there is insensitivity in anything, it is in denying this
> reality.

So you seek to claim that the death of, say, Martin Luther King, Jr.
held equal importance to the death of, say, Richard Pryor? JFK to Elvis?
Napoleon to the Apollo 1 astronauts?

Do you even know the names of the Apollo 1 astronauts? Using WP is cheating.

Careful, your sociopathy is showing.

TheSmokingGnu

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Mike Hunt wrote:
> It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others dying
> in the military.



But infinitely more significant than your death would be. What a slimy piece of
**** you must be.

[Mike Hunt]

B A R R Y wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:01 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
> wrote:
>
>
>>It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others dying
>>in the military.
>
>
> And no less, either.

We don't see pictures of the military deaths in Iraq on the news every
times someone is killed.

[Mike Hunt]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>
>>And no less, either.
>
>
> Someone dies somewhere every second. Do you mourn them all equally?
>

No kidding. There are about 31,556,926 seconds in a year.
There are about 55,490,538 deaths per year, and over twice as many births
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe

[Rudy]

> An F-18 can fly in excess of 450 MPH.. Who would've guessed?

On ONE engine ? Not too bad

[Mike Hunt]

Rudy wrote:
>>An F-18 can fly in excess of 450 MPH.. Who would've guessed?
>
>
> On ONE engine ? Not too bad
>

The report seemed to indicate that was separate from the ability to fly
on one engine.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Hunt writes:

> We don't see pictures of the military deaths in Iraq on the news every
> times someone is killed.

Perhaps that is why there have been so many military deaths in Iraq. The
Vietnam War would have continued indefinitely without the media.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Denny]

Well, I am going to continue with my usual rant: There is no
compelling reason for low level aerobatics! It should be banned...
Every airshow season some schmuck manages to turn his bird into
smoking wreckage while trying to prove he is the "best" at diving
within inches of death...

In this case it appears that the flight leader took the maneuver below
the treetops and this unfortunate schmuck, who had his eyes glued to
the wing ahead of him, kissed a pine tree...
If I were the prosecutor in that county I would charge the flight
leader with involuntary manslaughter and take him to trial...

denny

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

You're not related to Mike Nifong are you?

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ...
> If I were the prosecutor in that county I would charge the flight
> leader with involuntary manslaughter and take him to trial...
>
> denny
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Mike Hunt wrote:
>>> It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others dying
>>> in the military.
>>
>>
>> And no less, either.
>
> We don't see pictures of the military deaths in Iraq on the news every
> times someone is killed.


We do around here.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Witmarsh writes:

> No, it wouldn't have...the americans would have fled in the same
> cowardly fashion media or no media.

The only cowardice was in refusing to admit that Vietnam was a mistake for so
long in the first place. A lot of Americans died as a result.

> The usa will never become a major world player until it learns
> its place.

I'm not sure which USA you have in mind, but the USA I know is already the
number one player on the planet.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Denny writes:

> Well, I am going to continue with my usual rant: There is no
> compelling reason for low level aerobatics! It should be banned...
> Every airshow season some schmuck manages to turn his bird into
> smoking wreckage while trying to prove he is the "best" at diving
> within inches of death...

Why ban something that harms no one except the volunteers who do it?

> In this case it appears that the flight leader took the maneuver below
> the treetops and this unfortunate schmuck, who had his eyes glued to
> the wing ahead of him, kissed a pine tree...
> If I were the prosecutor in that county I would charge the flight
> leader with involuntary manslaughter and take him to trial...

The dead pilot was doing what he loved to do. Nobody else was killed. Why do
you have a problem with that?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mike Hunt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Denny writes:
>
>
>>Well, I am going to continue with my usual rant: There is no
>>compelling reason for low level aerobatics! It should be banned...
>>Every airshow season some schmuck manages to turn his bird into
>>smoking wreckage while trying to prove he is the "best" at diving
>>within inches of death...
>
>
> Why ban something that harms no one except the volunteers who do it?
>

So, the news reports about the injured people on the ground were incorrect?

[JohnT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Witmarsh writes:
>
>> No, it wouldn't have...the americans would have fled in the same
>> cowardly fashion media or no media.
>
> The only cowardice was in refusing to admit that Vietnam was a mistake for
> so
> long in the first place. A lot of Americans died as a result.
>
>> The usa will never become a major world player until it learns
>> its place.
>
> I'm not sure which USA you have in mind, but the USA I know is already the
> number one player on the planet.
>

I suppose that it depends on your definition of "number one player". To me,
it seems to be a Country which has spectacularly lost its way in the last
few years and which is now living on past glories. And its deficit has now
reached gynormous proportions.

JohnT

[Mike Hunt]

JohnT wrote:
>
> I suppose that it depends on your definition of "number one player". To me,
> it seems to be a Country which has spectacularly lost its way in the last
> few years and which is now living on past glories. And its deficit has now
> reached gynormous proportions.
>

You realize of course that our GDP is also "gynormous" compared to that
of other countries. Here is a link to a comparison based on percentage
of GDP.

[Erik]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> On 21 Apr, 23:08, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>See
>>
>>http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blueangels.crash/index.html
>>
>
>
> aren't you the little ray of sunshine.
>
> What's it to you anyway? Noone flies in your world, wannabe boi,

Are you a Christina Aguillara fan or something? I almost thought
you were talking about Koi, but then I thought, "What would big
goldfish be doing here?"

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> I suppose that it depends on your definition of "number one player". To me,
> it seems to be a Country which has spectacularly lost its way in the last
> few years and which is now living on past glories. And its deficit has now
> reached gynormous proportions.

True, but there's a lot of inertia, and it's always possible that the next
administration may fix things, although I am not optimistic. Until then, the
USA can only hope that China will continue to buy its debt and not call in any
notes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Hunt writes:

> So, the news reports about the injured people on the ground were incorrect?

Injuries other than crew and passengers are rare in aviation, too rare to
provide any basis for a ban.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gatt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> >> Do we pilots have a patron saint?
>
>> > Saint Joseph of Cupertino
>> > see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino
>
>> I notice we're lumped in there with "people with mental handicap"
>
> The patron saint of air travelers, aviators, people with a mental
> handicap, and bad students.

Sounds like my guy alright!

[gatt]

LOL! That's what I was going to say.

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
t...

> You're not related to Mike Nifong are you?

>> If I were the prosecutor in that county I would charge the flight
>> leader with involuntary manslaughter and take him to trial...
>>
>> denny
>>
>
>

[Mike Hunt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mike Hunt writes:
>
>
>>So, the news reports about the injured people on the ground were incorrect?
>
>
> Injuries other than crew and passengers are rare in aviation, too rare to
> provide any basis for a ban.
>

I was responding to your post indicating:

"Why ban something that harms no one except the volunteers who do it? "

Other people do get hurt, and in this case, other people got hurt.

[Greg Procter]

Dave Witmarsh wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:52:36 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Hunt writes:
> >
> >> We don't see pictures of the military deaths in Iraq on the news every
> >> times someone is killed.
> >
> >Perhaps that is why there have been so many military deaths in Iraq. The
> >Vietnam War would have continued indefinitely without the media.
>
> No, it wouldn't have...the americans would have fled in the same
> cowardly fashion media or no media. Nearly 40 years later the
> american military is still trying to clean the brown stains from its
> underwear and it still keeps making the same basic mistakes. The usa
> will never become a major world player until it learns its place.

"The scum of the Earth" probably isn't very appealing, even for yanks.

[Greg Procter]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Dave Witmarsh writes:
>
> > No, it wouldn't have...the americans would have fled in the same
> > cowardly fashion media or no media.
>
> The only cowardice was in refusing to admit that Vietnam was a mistake for so
> long in the first place. A lot of Americans died as a result.
>
> > The usa will never become a major world player until it learns
> > its place.
>
> I'm not sure which USA you have in mind, but the USA I know is already the
> number one player on the planet.

Only in their own tiny minds.

[Greg Procter]

Mike Hunt wrote:
>
> JohnT wrote:
> >
> > I suppose that it depends on your definition of "number one player". To me,
> > it seems to be a Country which has spectacularly lost its way in the last
> > few years and which is now living on past glories. And its deficit has now
> > reached gynormous proportions.
> >
>
> You realize of course that our GDP is also "gynormous" compared to that
> of other countries. Here is a link to a comparison based on percentage
> of GDP.


You couldn't find one???

[Greg Procter]

Larry in AZ wrote:
>
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Mxsmanic > said:
>
> > Dave Witmarsh writes:
> >
> >> No, it wouldn't have...the americans would have fled in the same
> >> cowardly fashion media or no media.
> >
> > The only cowardice was in refusing to admit that Vietnam was a mistake
> > for so long in the first place. A lot of Americans died as a result.
> >
> >> The usa will never become a major world player until it learns its
> >> place.
> >
> > I'm not sure which USA you have in mind, but the USA I know is already
> > the number one player on the planet.
>
> "Dave Witmarsh," real name, Ricky Mathers, is a disgraced former American,
> who now hides out in Asstrailer, after losing his pecker.
>
> His entire life now consists of posting lames to a single Usenet group under
> a revolving series of nyms.
>

Larry is a disgraced Froggie who now hides in the only country that will
still have him since he was thrown out of Equador on the charge of
"lowering the tone of the nation".

[TMOliver]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote ...
> Mike Hunt writes:
>
>> We don't see pictures of the military deaths in Iraq on the news every
>> times someone is killed.
>
> Perhaps that is why there have been so many military deaths in Iraq. The
> Vietnam War would have continued indefinitely without the media.
>
With 50,000 plus in Viet Nam yet less than 4,000 in Iraq, I guess that means
ten more years.....


Deaths? I'll give you deaths. In the late Summer and Fall of 1914, the
French Army lost 700,000 men in a short few months. That's more than have
been killed in all of the US's services in 20th century wars....

How was the French media along about first snowfall?

Still " Audace, audace, toujours audace!"

As for US battles, on one afternoon, although counting both sides in an
internecine conflict, the bloodiest day in US history, Sharpsburg/Anteitam
Creek, 27,000, the majority within a few hundred yards of a sunken lane. D
Day was a piker, less than 3,000 in 24 hours, not many more than Pearl
Harbor.

TMO

[Mxsmanic]

TMOliver writes:

> With 50,000 plus in Viet Nam yet less than 4,000 in Iraq, I guess that means
> ten more years.....

That is certainly a possibility.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Hunt writes:

> Other people do get hurt, and in this case, other people got hurt.

The exception does not moot the rule.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mike Hunt]

Greg Procter wrote:

> Mike Hunt wrote:
>
>>JohnT wrote:
>>
>>>I suppose that it depends on your definition of "number one player". To me,
>>>it seems to be a Country which has spectacularly lost its way in the last
>>>few years and which is now living on past glories. And its deficit has now
>>>reached gynormous proportions.
>>>
>>
>>You realize of course that our GDP is also "gynormous" compared to that
>>of other countries. Here is a link to a comparison based on percentage
>>of GDP.
>
>
>
> You couldn't find one???

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

[DevilsPGD]

In message . com> Denny
> wrote:

>Well, I am going to continue with my usual rant: There is no
>compelling reason for low level aerobatics! It should be banned...
>Every airshow season some schmuck manages to turn his bird into
>smoking wreckage while trying to prove he is the "best" at diving
>within inches of death...

So? What exactly is the problem here?

--
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Hunt wrote:
> B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:01 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others
>>> dying in the military.
>>
>>
>> And no less, either.
>
> We don't see pictures of the military deaths in Iraq on the news every
> times someone is killed.

I've seen everyone from my area in the local papers and also the time
and date of the memorial services. Maybe you should pay attention once
in a while. You just might learn something ... then again, probably not.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Denny wrote:
> Well, I am going to continue with my usual rant: There is no
> compelling reason for low level aerobatics! It should be banned...
> Every airshow season some schmuck manages to turn his bird into
> smoking wreckage while trying to prove he is the "best" at diving
> within inches of death...
>
> In this case it appears that the flight leader took the maneuver below
> the treetops and this unfortunate schmuck, who had his eyes glued to
> the wing ahead of him, kissed a pine tree...
> If I were the prosecutor in that county I would charge the flight
> leader with involuntary manslaughter and take him to trial...
>
> denny
>

We don't care about your rant, so why don't you go somewhere where
someone might care?

[Mike Hunt]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> I've seen everyone from my area in the local papers and also the time
> and date of the memorial services. Maybe you should pay attention once
> in a while. You just might learn something ... then again, probably not.

I am not talking about just the people in your area.
I am talking about all of the deaths.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> TheSmokingGnu writes:
>
>> And the fact that the two are separated by 60 years of history, two
>> major wars, countless smaller police actions, and an enormous
>> paradigm shift both in how the media covers a story and the role
>> society expects and accepts media coverage has *_ABSOLUTELY_* no
>> bearing on that, right?
>
> Right.
>
>> Or that the two had completely opposite purposes, right?
>
> Right.
>
>> You're treading dangerously close to Godwin's Law.
>
> I'm recognizing death for what it is, and the value of life for what
> it is.
>
> Lots of people die. My relationship to them does not determine the
> importance or unimportance of their deaths. At least I recognize
> that, and I do not try to rationalize any preferences I may personally
> have in order to deny their injustice.
>
>> They only asked that you not be an insensitive lout. That was,
>> obviously enough, too much.
>
> Are they the same ones who clamor for the killing of people they
> consider their enemies?
>
>> "One death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic". Heaven forbid that
>> a group of pilots should care when a highly-skilled member of their
>> ilk perishes doing his job more than the deaths of unrelated college
>> students.
>
> They are welcome to care. It's only when they try to pretend that
> they are not showing favoritism that there is a problem. Certain
> deaths may be more important to them--but that doesn't make those
> deaths more important objectively, and if there is insensitivity in
> anything, it is in denying this reality.



you're an idiot.


Bertie

[Greg Procter]

Mike Hunt wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> > Mike Hunt wrote:
> >
> >>JohnT wrote:
> >>
> >>>I suppose that it depends on your definition of "number one player". To me,
> >>>it seems to be a Country which has spectacularly lost its way in the last
> >>>few years and which is now living on past glories. And its deficit has now
> >>>reached gynormous proportions.
> >>>
> >>
> >>You realize of course that our GDP is also "gynormous" compared to that
> >>of other countries. Here is a link to a comparison based on percentage
> >>of GDP.
> >
> >
> >
> > You couldn't find one???
>
> https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

Your economy is circa 25% of the World total.
Your population is about 5% of the World total.

[Mike Hunt]

Greg Procter wrote:
> Mike Hunt wrote:
>
>>Greg Procter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike Hunt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>JohnT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I suppose that it depends on your definition of "number one player". To me,
>>>>>it seems to be a Country which has spectacularly lost its way in the last
>>>>>few years and which is now living on past glories. And its deficit has now
>>>>>reached gynormous proportions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You realize of course that our GDP is also "gynormous" compared to that
>>>>of other countries. Here is a link to a comparison based on percentage
>>>>of GDP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You couldn't find one???
>>
>>https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
>
>
> Your economy is circa 25% of the World total.
> Your population is about 5% of the World total.

That's funny.
Does this mean we are econ-comical?

[Greg Procter]

Mike Hunt wrote:
>
> Greg Procter wrote:
> > Mike Hunt wrote:
> >
> >>Greg Procter wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mike Hunt wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>JohnT wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I suppose that it depends on your definition of "number one player". To me,
> >>>>>it seems to be a Country which has spectacularly lost its way in the last
> >>>>>few years and which is now living on past glories. And its deficit has now
> >>>>>reached gynormous proportions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You realize of course that our GDP is also "gynormous" compared to that
> >>>>of other countries. Here is a link to a comparison based on percentage
> >>>>of GDP.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You couldn't find one???
> >>
> >>https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
> >
> >
> > Your economy is circa 25% of the World total.
> > Your population is about 5% of the World total.
>
> That's funny.
> Does this mean we are econ-comical?

It means you are effluent.