Re: Military flight operations and the FAA

[B2431]

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:05:15 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote:
>
>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>>>
>>> You just quoted the "national security" exception, Weiss.
>>
>>You must be delusional. There was no mention of "security" or "exception,"
>>either expressed or implied.
>
>He is delusional - this has been argued ad-nauseam this year, last
>year, and the prior year, and Tarver always argues from the same
>position, namely that the military is not at all subject to FAA
>jurisdiction.

Do you expect Tarver to ever admit he's wrong about anything?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:05:15 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >>>
> >>> You just quoted the "national security" exception, Weiss.
> >>
> >>You must be delusional. There was no mention of "security" or
"exception,"
> >>either expressed or implied.
> >
> >He is delusional - this has been argued ad-nauseam this year, last
> >year, and the prior year, and Tarver always argues from the same
> >position, namely that the military is not at all subject to FAA
> >jurisdiction.
>
> Do you expect Tarver to ever admit he's wrong about anything?

Only when I'm wrong.

Posters confusing Part 91 for ATC and Type Certification is a major
contributor to those posters' confusion.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Posters confusing Part 91 for ATC and Type Certification is a major
> contributor to those posters' confusion.

I haven't seen any evidence in this thread (or elsewhere in this forum) that
anyone has been confused regarding Part 91 and Type Certification, excepting the
possibility of confusion that might arise from your posts broaching the subject.

Also, nobody has made any assertion to the effect that "Part 91 is ATC" or
anything similar. The topic at hand does, however, include the fact that
military aircraft operations in US airspace are subject to ATC; and that fact is
supported by 49 USC, 14 CFR, and various military regulations.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:js9%a.118426$cF.32710@rwcrnsc53...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > Posters confusing Part 91 for ATC and Type Certification is a major
> > contributor to those posters' confusion.
>
> I haven't seen any evidence in this thread (or elsewhere in this forum)
that
> anyone has been confused regarding Part 91 and Type Certification,
excepting the
> possibility of confusion that might arise from your posts broaching the
subject.

Then you may have achieved a level of cognitive dissonance we seldom see
here at ram.

> Also, nobody has made any assertion to the effect that "Part 91 is ATC" or
> anything similar. The topic at hand does, however, include the fact that
> military aircraft operations in US airspace are subject to ATC; and that
fact is
> supported by 49 USC, 14 CFR, and various military regulations.

Military regulations are not in any way an indication that FAA has control
of military flight operations in the US. In fact, FAA Orders to ATC
indicate that ATC has a legal obligation to protect MOAs and an additional
obligation to respond immediately where special military operations are
under way. All this was well in evidence on 9-11, from a real world
operational standpoint.

I can tell from your postings that you have some emotional investment in
what you are writting Weiss, but that won't make it true. ATC is
consolidated under FAA control for safety and cost reasons, but that in no
way changed the Military's ability to operate in US airspace however and
whenever they need to. There was no intention in this consolidation to
imply FAA control of military operations.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[B2431]

>> Do you expect Tarver to ever admit he's wrong about anything?
>
>Only when I'm wrong.

Considering you have never admitted being wrong about anything in this or any
other NG it's safe to assume you think you are always correct.

Shall we go back to your assertions about pitot tubes?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >> Do you expect Tarver to ever admit he's wrong about anything?
> >
> >Only when I'm wrong.
>
> Considering you have never admitted being wrong about anything in this or
any
> other NG it's safe to assume you think you are always correct.

That is not true.

> Shall we go back to your assertions about pitot tubes?

If you like, NASA Dryden has added the screened over static port to their
website since we began the discussion. Where would you like to start, Dan?
Keep in mind that it was an air data conceptual error that Dudley stepped on
his dick over.

Got TSOA c-106 Dan?

But now we see the real problem is that Dan has trouble admitting when he is
wrong. Or perhaps Dan believes that an archive troll from the village idiot
of the aviation newsgroups is somehow relevent.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[B2431]

>> Shall we go back to your assertions about pitot tubes?
>
>If you like, NASA Dryden has added the screened over static port to their
>website since we began the discussion.

<snip>

I said "pitot tube" not "static port."

>But now we see the real problem is that Dan has trouble admitting when he is
>wrong. Or perhaps Dan believes that an archive troll from the village idiot
>of the aviation newsgroups is somehow relevent.
>
>John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>
And once again you resort rather rapidly to personal attacks and name calling.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >> Shall we go back to your assertions about pitot tubes?
> >
> >If you like, NASA Dryden has added the screened over static port to their
> >website since we began the discussion.
>
> <snip>
>
> I said "pitot tube" not "static port."

Right, you don't have a clue how a transport is instrumented for air data,
Dan.

A pitot tube provids both static and pitot ports, but the pitot tube is
unreliable, so 40 years ago most transports switched to static ports and
pitot ports.

So Dan, what did you do in the Air force? I hope it was some job where you
might have at least some knowledge of avionics; otherwise, you mostly speak
out of turn.

John p. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

[B2431]

>
>Right, you don't have a clue how a transport is instrumented for air data,
>Dan.
>
>A pitot tube provids both static and pitot ports, but the pitot tube is
>unreliable, so 40 years ago most transports switched to static ports and
>pitot ports.
>
>So Dan, what did you do in the Air force? I hope it was some job where you
>might have at least some knowledge of avionics; otherwise, you mostly speak
>out of turn.
>
>John p. Tarver, MS/PE
>Electrical Engineer
>
No such thing as a pitot port, never has been. A pitot tube only provides pitot
pressure. A pitot-static tube provides both.

So clue me, where, pray tell, would a "pitot port" be intsalled on an aircraft?
Name one aircraft that has "pitot ports."

I worked on pitot-static systems for many years.

Do you know what MB-1, TTU-229 and TTU-205 test sets are with out looking them
up?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Right, you don't have a clue how a transport is instrumented for air
data,
> >Dan.
> >
> >A pitot tube provids both static and pitot ports, but the pitot tube is
> >unreliable, so 40 years ago most transports switched to static ports and
> >pitot ports.
> >
> >So Dan, what did you do in the Air force? I hope it was some job where
you
> >might have at least some knowledge of avionics; otherwise, you mostly
speak
> >out of turn.

> No such thing as a pitot port, never has been.

Poor Dan, off into denial.

> A pitot tube only provides pitot
> pressure. A pitot-static tube provides both.

My goodness, Dan, you really are clueless.

Say again what you did in the air force, Dan.

john P. Tarver, MS/PE

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >Right, you don't have a clue how a transport is instrumented for air
> data,
> > >Dan.
> > >
> > >A pitot tube provids both static and pitot ports, but the pitot tube is
> > >unreliable, so 40 years ago most transports switched to static ports
and
> > >pitot ports.
> > >
> > >So Dan, what did you do in the Air force? I hope it was some job where
> you
> > >might have at least some knowledge of avionics; otherwise, you mostly
> speak
> > >out of turn.
>
> > No such thing as a pitot port, never has been.
>
> Poor Dan, off into denial.
>
> > A pitot tube only provides pitot
> > pressure. A pitot-static tube provides both.
>
> My goodness, Dan, you really are clueless.
>
> Say again what you did in the air force, Dan.
>
> john P. Tarver, MS/PE
>

Compare the two systems for us, John.
Tell us about the pitot tube on say, a 757
and the pitot-static tube on a 767.
You *do* know that they are completely
different type systems???
Why do I get the feeling that you don't!
In my 27 years at UAL, I replaced dozens
and leak tested hundreds of both types.
Then tell us which type is used on the 727?
How about the 737? (and don't forget those
ELF tubes up on the vert. stab.)
I've tried to explain all of this to you in the
Tarver Chronicles.
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
What the hell is a screened over static port on a 727?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...

I don't reply to archive trolls, village idiot Knoyle.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I don't reply to archive trolls, village idiot Knoyle.
>
>
You also snip the material that you can't (or won't)
answer, but just in case, I'll repeat the question(s).
We notice that you can't answer the question the
way that Dan words it either. :-)

Dan and I think that you don't know a pitot-static
system for doughnuts. :-)

(repeat of tarver's snippage)
Compare the two systems for us, John.
Tell us about the pitot tube on say, a 757
and the pitot-static tube on a 767.
You *do* know that they are completely
different type systems???
Why do I get the feeling that you don't!
In my 27 years at UAL, I replaced dozens
and leak tested hundreds of both types.
Then tell us which type is used on the 727?
How about the 737? (and don't forget those
ELF tubes up on the vert. stab.)
I've tried to explain all of this to you in the
Tarver Chronicles.
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
What the hell is a screened over static port on a 727?

[Tom Mosher]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message >...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > I don't reply to archive trolls, village idiot Knoyle.
> >
> >
> You also snip the material that you can't (or won't)
> answer, but just in case, I'll repeat the question(s).
> We notice that you can't answer the question the
> way that Dan words it either. :-)
>
> Dan and I think that you don't know a pitot-static
> system for doughnuts. :-)
>
> (repeat of tarver's snippage)
> Compare the two systems for us, John.
> Tell us about the pitot tube on say, a 757
> and the pitot-static tube on a 767.
> You *do* know that they are completely
> different type systems???
> Why do I get the feeling that you don't!
> In my 27 years at UAL, I replaced dozens
> and leak tested hundreds of both types.
> Then tell us which type is used on the 727?
> How about the 737? (and don't forget those
> ELF tubes up on the vert. stab.)
> I've tried to explain all of this to you in the
> Tarver Chronicles.
> http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html
> What the hell is a screened over static port on a 727?

Here's a tough one for JT. How do you screen over an opening that is
approximately 1/16" in diamter?

Tom

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> So why not answer my questions?

I am.

> I was in avionics most of my 20 years.

It is fantastic that you dodged my question and then believe i have some
obligation to answer you, Dan. If you mean to ask why you have been in my
killfile for so long, it is because you are a prick.

[B2431]

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
><snip>
>
>> So why not answer my questions?
>
>I am.
>
>> I was in avionics most of my 20 years.
>
>It is fantastic that you dodged my question and then believe i have some
>obligation to answer you, Dan. If you mean to ask why you have been in my
>killfile for so long, it is because you are a prick.
>
Pay attention, Tarver, I did answer your question. Once again you resorted to
personal attacks and vulgarity instead of backing up your claims. If you can't
do it be man enough to say you can't.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> So why not answer my questions?
> >
> >I am.
> >
> >> I was in avionics most of my 20 years.
> >
> >It is fantastic that you dodged my question and then believe i have some
> >obligation to answer you, Dan. If you mean to ask why you have been in
my
> >killfile for so long, it is because you are a prick.
> >
> Pay attention, Tarver, I did answer your question. Once again you resorted
to
> personal attacks and vulgarity instead of backing up your claims. If you
can't
> do it be man enough to say you can't.

No Dan, you posted some bull**** about being in avionics for 20 years, while
at the same time demonstrating that you don't know that a "pitot tube" is.
At this point I suspect you were an out in 12 Air force NCO that never got
close to an airplane.

I say again, what did you do in the Air Force, Dan?

[B2431]

>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> So why not answer my questions?
>> >
>> >I am.
>> >
>> >> I was in avionics most of my 20 years.
>> >
>> >It is fantastic that you dodged my question and then believe i have some
>> >obligation to answer you, Dan. If you mean to ask why you have been in
>my
>> >killfile for so long, it is because you are a prick.
>> >
>> Pay attention, Tarver, I did answer your question. Once again you resorted
>to
>> personal attacks and vulgarity instead of backing up your claims. If you
>can't
>> do it be man enough to say you can't.
>
>No Dan, you posted some bull**** about being in avionics for 20 years, while
>at the same time demonstrating that you don't know that a "pitot tube" is.
>At this point I suspect you were an out in 12 Air force NCO that never got
>close to an airplane.
>
>I say again, what did you do in the Air Force, Dan?

I told you and you still refuse to answer my questions.

I know the difference between a pitot tube and a pitot-static tube having
changed enough of them.

Next time you see a C-130 take a look at the side of the fuselage. See the
ports that look like pepper shakers? Those are static ports. Look at the pitot
tube. Now look at the inside of the nose wheel well where the pitot tube is
mounted. You will see exactly ONE #4 hose connected to each tube. That is for
pitot pressure.

Now look at an F-4E's pitot-static tube. Notice it has small holes a few inches
back from the tip. Now open the radome. You will notice TWO #4 nylon tubes
connectint to the pitiot-static tube. One is for static and the other is for
pitot pressure.

Now answer my questions. Name one airctaft with a "pitot port" and describe how
it is mounted. Now tell me what TTU-205, MB-1 and TTU-229 test sets are for.

Can you do that without personal attacks or vulgarity?

Now go look up AFSC 325X1.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >> So why not answer my questions?
> >> >
> >> >I am.
> >> >
> >> >> I was in avionics most of my 20 years.
> >> >
> >> >It is fantastic that you dodged my question and then believe i have
some
> >> >obligation to answer you, Dan. If you mean to ask why you have been
in
> >my
> >> >killfile for so long, it is because you are a prick.
> >> >
> >> Pay attention, Tarver, I did answer your question. Once again you
resorted to
> >> personal attacks and vulgarity instead of backing up your claims. If
you can't
> >> do it be man enough to say you can't.
> >
> >No Dan, you posted some bull**** about being in avionics for 20 years,
while
> >at the same time demonstrating that you don't know that a "pitot tube"
is.
> >At this point I suspect you were an out in 12 Air force NCO that never
got
> >close to an airplane.
> >
> >I say again, what did you do in the Air Force, Dan?
>
> I told you and you still refuse to answer my questions.

No you didn't, you just wrote that you worked avionics in your lifeetime.
We can know that is a lie, since Dan doesn;t know what a pitot tube is.

I'll gpo wit Dan being a 12 and out loser, as that is where he is now.

Simple, did and dione.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >> >
> > >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> >
> > >> ><snip>
> > >> >
> > >> >> So why not answer my questions?
> > >> >
> > >> >I am.
> > >> >
> > >> >> I was in avionics most of my 20 years.
> > >> >
> > >> >It is fantastic that you dodged my question and then believe i have
> some
> > >> >obligation to answer you, Dan. If you mean to ask why you have been
> in
> > >my
> > >> >killfile for so long, it is because you are a prick.
> > >> >
> > >> Pay attention, Tarver, I did answer your question. Once again you
> resorted to
> > >> personal attacks and vulgarity instead of backing up your claims. If
> you can't
> > >> do it be man enough to say you can't.
> > >
> > >No Dan, you posted some bull**** about being in avionics for 20 years,
> while
> > >at the same time demonstrating that you don't know that a "pitot tube"
> is.
> > >At this point I suspect you were an out in 12 Air force NCO that never
> got
> > >close to an airplane.
> > >
> > >I say again, what did you do in the Air Force, Dan?
> >
> > I told you and you still refuse to answer my questions.
>
> No you didn't, you just wrote that you worked avionics in your lifeetime.
> We can know that is a lie, since Dan doesn;t know what a pitot tube is.
>
> I'll gpo wit Dan being a 12 and out loser, as that is where he is now.
>
> Simple, did and dione.
>
>
John,
I would like to hear your comment on these facts. Of the
two types of pitot and pitot/static systems most commonly
found on commercial aircraft, the combined probe includes
the pitot tube *and* two static ports, S1 and S2. This is
the most complex and state of the art appearing hardware,
what with 3 individual functions. This is the type probe used
on the 747, 767 and 737 except for those two simple pitot
tubes used for ELF up on the 737 vertical stab.
The other type, the simple single function pitot tube, along
with the separate, flush mounted static ports located on the
side of the fuselage several feet away from the pitot tubes
make up the other system that we will find used on the DC10,
the 727, the 757 and of all critters, the 777!!!

What was that crap you were giving us a day or so ago about
all modern airliners made within the last 20 years or so?
You aren't going to force me to go digging in Google again?

JK

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver, why won't you explain about "pitot ports?"

That would just help you lie better later, Dan.

So, what did you do in the Air Force? The avionics answer is bull****, as
that is not how the Airforce works and you don't even have a grasp of the
most basic air data.

[Grantland]

(B2431) wrote:

>>Was this the 12 and out job you had, or did you actually do the complete
>>20,Dan?
>>
>>So Dan, with all that experiance, how could you not know what a pitot tube
>>is? I can accept the idea that Knoyle is just a village idiot, but
>>certainly you should know better.
>>
>>John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>>
>Tarver, in order to retire I had to do 20. My AFSC didn't allow for early
>retirement in my pay grade. Besides that I was already at about 18 or 19 when
>the came out with the 15 year retirement.
>
>I have more than once explained to you what pitot and pitot-static tubes are.
>You, on the other hand, have said "pitot ports" have replaced pitot tubes on
>transport type aircraft. You have been asked several times by people other than
>me to explain what a "pitot port" is. The fact you respond with abuse instead
>of proving your assertion is proof enough to me that you have no case.
>
>Let's assume someone decides to install a "pitot port." A port similar to a
>static port, flush to the skin with one or more holes, would never sense pitot
>pressure on any surface of the aircraft due to airflow. This includes the
>furthest forward part of the nose. Now, if you wish to use this "port" you have
>to move it out of the the boundary layer you need to extend it forward a couple
>of inches. Hey, guess what? You now have a pitot tube. Wow, what a discovery!
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Well that's the end of the argument. Well done sir! Thank God.

Praise be!

Grantland

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Tarver, why won't you explain about "pitot ports?"
> >
> >That would just help you lie better later, Dan.
> >
> >So, what did you do in the Air Force? The avionics answer is bull****,
as
> >that is not how the Airforce works and you don't even have a grasp of the
> >most basic air data.

> I gave you my first AFSC in aircraft maintenance: 325X1. I thought you
might
> know what it was: avionics instruments systems. This included flight,
> navigation, fuel and engine instruments. In the 1980s they added INS and
> autopilot. I was also crewchief qualified on the F-4E.

Was this the 12 and out job you had, or did you actually do the complete
20,Dan?

So Dan, with all that experiance, how could you not know what a pitot tube
is? I can accept the idea that Knoyle is just a village idiot, but
certainly you should know better.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[B2431]

>Was this the 12 and out job you had, or did you actually do the complete
>20,Dan?
>
>So Dan, with all that experiance, how could you not know what a pitot tube
>is? I can accept the idea that Knoyle is just a village idiot, but
>certainly you should know better.
>
>John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>
Tarver, in order to retire I had to do 20. My AFSC didn't allow for early
retirement in my pay grade. Besides that I was already at about 18 or 19 when
the came out with the 15 year retirement.

I have more than once explained to you what pitot and pitot-static tubes are.
You, on the other hand, have said "pitot ports" have replaced pitot tubes on
transport type aircraft. You have been asked several times by people other than
me to explain what a "pitot port" is. The fact you respond with abuse instead
of proving your assertion is proof enough to me that you have no case.

Let's assume someone decides to install a "pitot port." A port similar to a
static port, flush to the skin with one or more holes, would never sense pitot
pressure on any surface of the aircraft due to airflow. This includes the
furthest forward part of the nose. Now, if you wish to use this "port" you have
to move it out of the the boundary layer you need to extend it forward a couple
of inches. Hey, guess what? You now have a pitot tube. Wow, what a discovery!

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Dave Holford > wrote:

>
>
>B2431 wrote:
>>
>> >Was this the 12 and out job you had, or did you actually do the complete
>> >20,Dan?
>> >
>> >So Dan, with all that experiance, how could you not know what a pitot tube
>> >is? I can accept the idea that Knoyle is just a village idiot, but
>> >certainly you should know better.
>> >
>> >John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>> >
>> Tarver, in order to retire I had to do 20. My AFSC didn't allow for early
>> retirement in my pay grade. Besides that I was already at about 18 or 19 when
>> the came out with the 15 year retirement.
>>
>> I have more than once explained to you what pitot and pitot-static tubes are.
>> You, on the other hand, have said "pitot ports" have replaced pitot tubes on
>> transport type aircraft. You have been asked several times by people other than
>> me to explain what a "pitot port" is. The fact you respond with abuse instead
>> of proving your assertion is proof enough to me that you have no case.
>>
>> Let's assume someone decides to install a "pitot port." A port similar to a
>> static port, flush to the skin with one or more holes, would never sense pitot
>> pressure on any surface of the aircraft due to airflow. This includes the
>> furthest forward part of the nose. Now, if you wish to use this "port" you have
>> to move it out of the the boundary layer you need to extend it forward a couple
>> of inches. Hey, guess what? You now have a pitot tube. Wow, what a discovery!
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>Dan
>
>It is a total waste of time trying to talk sense to Tarver. He lives in
>his own little world where the laws of physics exist only in his tiny
>little head.
>
>It is unfortunate he will not be able to understand your lucid
>explanation of how things really work.
>
>He used to be entertaining, but lately has become a typical old bore.
>
>Regards,
>Dave

Precisely, Dan explained the Pitot system well and accurately,
Dave explained JT well and accurately too. JT's just a ~gentle
troll you know (by his own admission a couple of years ago)
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...

> Precisely, Dan explained the Pitot system well and accurately,

Dan described a pitot static system, but he doesn't know what a pitot tube
is.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dave Holford" > wrote in message
...

It seems Holford doesn't know what a pitot tube is either.

Our idiots have formed a false consensus. :)

[Dave Holford]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> It seems Holford doesn't know what a pitot tube is either.
>

You have no idea how difficult it is to not make the obvious response.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> > > It seems Holford doesn't know what a pitot tube is either.
>
> > You have no idea how difficult it is to not make the obvious response.
>
> Your ignorance is being broadcast worldwide, Holford. Let us in on your
> little joke.

No! Don't!

Let him stew!

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:CAW0b.212110$Ho3.27606@sccrnsc03...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > > > It seems Holford doesn't know what a pitot tube is either.
> >
> > > You have no idea how difficult it is to not make the obvious response.
> >
> > Your ignorance is being broadcast worldwide, Holford. Let us in on your
> > little joke.
>
> No! Don't!
>
> Let him stew!

I am not going to stew about the trolls of ram.

[[email protected]]

>Tarver Engineering wrote:

>I am not going to stew about the trolls of ram.

So instead of stewing, you prefer to repeatedly smash yourself
in the forehead with a cast-iron skillet in your vain attempts to
outsmart a world that is unilaterally smarter than you?

-Mike Marron

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...

> That seems an alternate reality to the way major players at ram debate me.

Debate?!? "Debunk" is more accurate!

In a debate, both sides present evidence to substantiate their claims. In your
case, any substantiating evidence rarely makes it to the newsgroup, if it exists
at all...

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> In Weiss' case, the only way he can compete is to change the subject.

Speaking of which...


> Now Wess, don't let your support of squids killing Germans on Italian ski
> lifts cloud your judgement. By the way, you never admitted you were wrong
> then either.

I never supported any such thing! What was I "wrong" about?

[Ed Rasimus]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>>
>> You forgot to mention that Rasimus lied about flying Thuds in SEA...
>
>Ed had a pretty good sized mental block going and wrote a lot of things
>about his airplane that are not true. That coupled with the large number of
>managers being caught lying on their resumes made Ed's story incredible.
>Now of course, Ed knows I believe him. Lying about F-105 flying is one of
>the most common untruths told in corporate America.
>
>

John, you are more than welcome to come to any River Rats reunion and
discuss with my peers your estimation of my prevarication capacity.

You might also want to bring your charges to the attention of Chuck &
Mary Schantag who have dedicated themselves to exposing wannabes and
poseurs.

Oh, and be sure to forward your documentation to Smithsonian
Institution Press.

As for "lying about F-105 flying" being one of the most common
untruths told in corporate America--honestly, John, most of corporate
American doesn't even know that a war occurred in those years.

You remain one of the lowest, most despicable, forms of animal life.
For someone (and here, I begin to sound a bit like Art), who has never
been on either end of a shot fired in anger, to demean, discredit and
accuse without basis is an outrage.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> You forgot to mention that Rasimus lied about flying Thuds in SEA...
> >
> >Ed had a pretty good sized mental block going and wrote a lot of things
> >about his airplane that are not true. That coupled with the large number
of
> >managers being caught lying on their resumes made Ed's story incredible.
> >Now of course, Ed knows I believe him. Lying about F-105 flying is one
of
> >the most common untruths told in corporate America.

> John, you are more than welcome to come to any River Rats reunion and
> discuss with my peers your estimation of my prevarication capacity.

I no longer doubt you, Ed.

> You might also want to bring your charges to the attention of Chuck &
> Mary Schantag who have dedicated themselves to exposing wannabes and
> poseurs.

About the time you left the ezine there were 4 VPs and CEOs removed for
claiming to be F-105 pilots in Viet Nam (WSJ) and probably a number of
others less well publicised.

> Oh, and be sure to forward your documentation to Smithsonian
> Institution Press.

Corporate America doesn't like folks lying on ther resumes. Being an F-105
pilot in Viet Nam is a big plus in upper management. Not just for the EOC
points, but also for the respect it deserves.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Electrical Engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
t...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > In Weiss' case, the only way he can compete is to change the subject.
>
> Speaking of which...

Oh that's right, you wanted to talk about me.
>
> > Now Wess, don't let your support of squids killing Germans on Italian
ski
> > lifts cloud your judgement. By the way, you never admitted you were
wrong
> > then either.
>
> I never supported any such thing! What was I "wrong" about?

It is a matter of permanent public usenet record, for all to read. In fact,
it is the first debate Weiss and I had at ram. I claimed it would be
dangerous to kill German civilians without severe sanctions against the
operator and Weiss thought it was no big deal, as "everybody does it".
Don't you remember what you write, John?

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> It is a matter of permanent public usenet record, for all to read. In fact,
> it is the first debate Weiss and I had at ram. I claimed it would be
> dangerous to kill German civilians without severe sanctions against the
> operator and Weiss thought it was no big deal, as "everybody does it".
> Don't you remember what you write, John?

I remember what I write, and I never wrote what you claim. I will take your
failure to post the specific references as your admission you're either a liar
or delusional.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> > It is a matter of permanent public usenet record, for all to read. In
fact,
> > it is the first debate Weiss and I had at ram. I claimed it would be
> > dangerous to kill German civilians without severe sanctions against the
> > operator and Weiss thought it was no big deal, as "everybody does it".
> > Don't you remember what you write, John?
>
> I remember what I write, and I never wrote what you claim. I will take
your
> failure to post the specific references as your admission you're either a
liar
> or delusional.

You can search your own posts up, Weiss, or if you decide to self destruct,
like Dudley, mayble I'll help.

[Billy Beck]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> wrote...
>>>
>>> You forgot to mention that Rasimus lied about flying Thuds in SEA...
>>
>>Ed had a pretty good sized mental block going and wrote a lot of things
>>about his airplane that are not true. That coupled with the large number of
>>managers being caught lying on their resumes made Ed's story incredible.
>>Now of course, Ed knows I believe him. Lying about F-105 flying is one of
>>the most common untruths told in corporate America.

>John, you are more than welcome to come to any River Rats reunion and
>discuss with my peers your estimation of my prevarication capacity.
>
>You might also want to bring your charges to the attention of Chuck &
>Mary Schantag who have dedicated themselves to exposing wannabes and
>poseurs.
>
>Oh, and be sure to forward your documentation to Smithsonian
>Institution Press.
>
>As for "lying about F-105 flying" being one of the most common
>untruths told in corporate America--honestly, John, most of corporate
>American doesn't even know that a war occurred in those years.
>
>You remain one of the lowest, most despicable, forms of animal life.
>For someone (and here, I begin to sound a bit like Art), who has never
>been on either end of a shot fired in anger, to demean, discredit and
>accuse without basis is an outrage.

The difference between you and Art is that you've got a valid
target.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php