A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB

[Arnold Sten]

GA Pilots are not the only pilots who are subject to noise complaints.
Read this story:


Subject: A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB, AZ

Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being
surrounded by civilization that complains about the
noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it
was there long before they were.

A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a
big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who
lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper
complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed
his/her day at the mall. When that individual read the
response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung
quite a bit.

The complaint:
"Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do
we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at
precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight formation of four F-16
jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing
west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet.

Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes
feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to
impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special? Any
response would be appreciated."


The response:
Regarding "A wake-up call from Luke's jets" (Letters,
Thursday): On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a
perfectly timed four-ship flyby of F-16s from the 63rd
Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the
grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques.

Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was
previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was
killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day. At 9 a.m. on
June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland
Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a
husband, son and friend.

Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby,
and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear
the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to
the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them
their son's flag on behalf of the President of the
United States and all those veterans and servicemen and
women who understand the sacrifices they have endured.
A four-ship flyby is a display of respect
the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in
defense of freedom.

We are professional aviators and take our jobs
seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer
witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their
ultimate respects.

The letter writer asks, "Whom do we thank for the
morning air show?" The 56th Fighter Wing will call for
you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents
of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was
in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable
formation of their lives.

Lt. Col. Scott Pleus
CO, 63rd Fighter Squadron
Luke AFB

[[email protected]]

Thank you, Arold.

TIna

[Peter R.]

On 7/9/2007 2:00:05 PM, Arnold Sten wrote:

> GA Pilots are not the only pilots who are subject to noise complaints.
> Read this story:

Snopes has this story on their site, which they indicate as a true account:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp

Interesting to note that the original complainant's apology, FWIW, is also
included on the Snopes' page.

--
Peter

[Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address)]

According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp


There was another letter that continued this topic.

To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written apology
which was published in The Republic on 9 July:

Regarding "Flyby honoring fallen comrade" (Letters, June 28):

I read with increasing embarrassment and humility the response to my
unfortunate letter to The Republic concerning an Air Force flyby ("A
wake-up call from Luke's jets," Letters, June 23).

I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.

I have received many calls from the fine airmen who are serving or have
served at Luke, and I have attempted to explain my side and apologized
for any discomfort my letter has caused.

This was simply an uninformed citizen complaining about noise.

I have been made aware in both written and verbal communications of the
four-ship flyby, and my heart goes out to each and every lost serviceman
and woman in this war in which we are engaged.

I have been called un-American by an unknown caller and I feel that I
must address that. I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran. I
love my country and respect the jobs that the service organizations are
doing.

Please accept my heartfelt apologies.

Tom MacRae, Peoria

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 7/9/2007 2:00:05 PM, Arnold Sten wrote:
>
>> GA Pilots are not the only pilots who are subject to noise complaints.
>> Read this story:
>
> Snopes has this story on their site, which they indicate as a true
> account:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>
> Interesting to note that the original complainant's apology, FWIW, is also
> included on the Snopes' page.

Embarrassment is probably an understatement - I can imagine the letter
writer wanted to throw up.


Matt B.
--
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become
dominant.
The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in
America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
-- Omar Ahmad, Chairman Emeritus, Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR).

[Gatt]

"Arnold Sten" > wrote in message
. ..
> GA Pilots are not the only pilots who are subject to noise complaints.
> Read this story:

Figures. Here in Oregon a developer--probably from another (Calif'ckin)
state--built an upscale middle-class housing development and sold a bunch of
homes...immediately downrange from the Camp Withycombe rifle range which had
been there since WWII.

Then, suddenly, the new homeowners went bug**** when they made the shocking
discovery. 'WHAT? RIFLE RANGE? How -DARE- they put up such a thing 50
years before we decided to build our house at the end of it?' Their whole
attitude is 'Well, nobody checked in with ME, and nobody told ME about it,
so it has to be stopped.'

Personally, I'm a Darwinist. If you're so f'in stupid you buy a home
without realizing there's a military shooting range pointed at you, humanity
needs you to stand there and absorb whatever comes flying through the front
of your house, 'cause otherwise you might breed idiots even more stupid than
you are.

-c

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
posted:

> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>
>
> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>
> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written apology
> which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>
[...]
> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
[...]
> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>
Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?

Neil

[Gatt]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...

>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>
> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?

LOL!

-c
Uh oh...here comes the Corpsman!

[Robert M. Gary]

When my dad died some "helpful" citizen wrote into the local paper
pointing out that the obituary the paper wrote forgot to mention the
cost to the taxpayer for the Navy to replace the jet. That stupid
letter to the editor bothered my mother for years. I'm not sure if
some people just don't care or are just clueless.

-Robert

[Al G[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
> posted:
>
>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>
>>
>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>
>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written apology
>> which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>
> [...]
>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
> [...]
>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>
> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>
> Neil
>

No, why?

Al G

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Gatt" > said:
>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>
>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>
>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>
>LOL!

A friend of mine still carries the burn scars he got on the Forrestall.
Are you going to tell me he isn't a Vietnam veteran?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
If killing them all to a man is not an option then you are better off to
simply leave them to slowly self destruct under their own incompetance.
-- Dag

[Al G[_2_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Gatt" > said:
>>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>>
>>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>
>>LOL!
>
> A friend of mine still carries the burn scars he got on the Forrestall.
> Are you going to tell me he isn't a Vietnam veteran?
>
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> If killing them all to a man is not an option then you are better off to
> simply leave them to slowly self destruct under their own incompetance.
> -- Dag

I believe most of the POW's were Navy. Ground pounders included
Corpsmen(sp?) and Seals. Wasn't it P3's that mined Haiphong Harbor(sp?). As
an ECM operator I...Nevermind, I'd have to kill you.

Al G (Ex Navy)

[Gatt]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Gatt" > said:
>>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>>
>>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>
>>LOL!
>
> A friend of mine still carries the burn scars he got on the Forrestall.
> Are you going to tell me he isn't a Vietnam veteran?

There's an A-7 from the Forrestall at Tillamook Air Museum.

Perhaps you missed my "Uh oh...here comes the Corpsman!" part. (Corpsmen
were Navy medical personnel attached with Marine units, so it follows that
if I say "Here comes the Corpsman" the idea a soldier can be Navy and
Vietnam vet is rather implied.)

-c
Not to mention Skyhawk driver and ex-POW John McCain.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>
> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?


Um, no.

Vaughn

[150flivver]

On Jul 9, 6:19 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In a previous article, "Gatt" > said:
> >>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>
> >>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>
> >>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>
> >>LOL!
>
> > A friend of mine still carries the burn scars he got on the Forrestall.
> > Are you going to tell me he isn't a Vietnam veteran?
>
> There's an A-7 from the Forrestall at Tillamook Air Museum.
>
> Perhaps you missed my "Uh oh...here comes the Corpsman!" part. (Corpsmen
> were Navy medical personnel attached with Marine units, so it follows that
> if I say "Here comes the Corpsman" the idea a soldier can be Navy and
> Vietnam vet is rather implied.)
>
> -c
> Not to mention Skyhawk driver and ex-POW John McCain.

Lots of naval personnel manned riverboats doing patrol in the delta
(even John Kerry).

[Travis Marlatte]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>
>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>
>
> Um, no.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>

How about that statement that one above that you snipped?

> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.


--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Al G > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
>> posted:
>>
>>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>>
>>>
>>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>>
>>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written
>>> apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>>
>> [...]
>>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
>> [...]
>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>
>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>
>>
>
> No, why?
>
I find it difficult to understand that a Vietnam Vet would not know the
significance of a formation flyby, regardless of whether they knew of a
specific reason for it.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Vaughn Simon > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>
>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>
>
> Um, no.
>
That is only one of the two statements. See my original post, please.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Clark > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
> news:5swki.21165$RX.2146 @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
>> posted:
>>
>>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>>
>>>
>>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>>
>>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written
>>> apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>>
>> [...]
>>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
>> [...]
>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>
>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>
> Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I
> won't type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.
>
The "two statements" imply that a military vet wouldn't understand the
significance of a formation flyby. Is that a reason to have bad thoughts
about my nature? If so, please do type it for my enlightenment.

Neil

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Gatt" > said:
>>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>>
>>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>
>>LOL!
>
> A friend of mine still carries the burn scars he got on the Forrestall.
> Are you going to tell me he isn't a Vietnam veteran?
>
Not to mention all the A-4 drivers....

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
> posted:
>
>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>
>>
>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>
>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written apology
>> which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>
> [...]
>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
> [...]
>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>
> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>
> Neil

Hey, Neil!

Ever heard of a dude by the name of John McCain?

He's running for president, ya know!

{Ignorance is bliss}

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"150flivver" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jul 9, 6:19 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
>> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > In a previous article, "Gatt" > said:
>> >>"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>
>> >>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>
>> >>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>
>> >>LOL!
>>
>> > A friend of mine still carries the burn scars he got on the Forrestall.
>> > Are you going to tell me he isn't a Vietnam veteran?
>>
>> There's an A-7 from the Forrestall at Tillamook Air Museum.
>>
>> Perhaps you missed my "Uh oh...here comes the Corpsman!" part. (Corpsmen
>> were Navy medical personnel attached with Marine units, so it follows
>> that
>> if I say "Here comes the Corpsman" the idea a soldier can be Navy and
>> Vietnam vet is rather implied.)
>>
>> -c
>> Not to mention Skyhawk driver and ex-POW John McCain.
>
> Lots of naval personnel manned riverboats doing patrol in the delta
> (even John Kerry).

Not to mention author Richard "Rogue Warrior" Marcinko, Navy SEAL and
founder of SEAL Team 6.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> When my dad died some "helpful" citizen wrote into the local paper
> pointing out that the obituary the paper wrote forgot to mention the
> cost to the taxpayer for the Navy to replace the jet. That stupid
> letter to the editor bothered my mother for years. I'm not sure if
> some people just don't care or are just clueless.
>
Both.

Add, too, just plain hateful/spiteful.

I'm (not) surprised that the newspaper published such idiocy, but then,
they're newspapers...

(Oh, and VN can shove whatever childish rationalization he's trying to pull
out of his anal passage)

[Tina]

Your note suggests both gross ignorance on the part of the letter
writer, and of the newspaper for publishing such a letter.

Our country stands on the shoulders of the men and women who fought
for it, but that's an awful expression. I'd rather that the country
carry their memories on its shoulders.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:54:55 +0000, Tina wrote:

> Your note suggests both gross ignorance on the part of the letter writer,
> and of the newspaper for publishing such a letter.

I don't know about the second. Consider the story with which this thread
started. The author - and everyone that read the entire dialog in the
newspaper - learned a valuable lesson. A bit of ignorance and
small-mindedness was defeated.

Publishing ignorant letters is an opportunity. Better that then have
those people quietly voting out of their ignorance, no?

Of course, it would be even better if newspapers actually sought answers,
but that doesn't seem to be a part of journalism (with a few exceptions)
anymore. Rather, they tend to just accept what they're told and even
sometimes publish these "facts" w/o any qualification (ie. "fact" rather
than "fact according to ...").

- Andrew

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:38:41 -0500, "Neil Gould" > wrote:

>What does that have to do with the question at hand: what Vet wouldn't
>know the significance of a flyby formation???

I don't find it that far-fetched that someone NOT involved in aviation would not
know the traditions of the aviation branches. Maybe the guy had been a
submariner, or served in a small port with not aviation presence.

Works both ways. Many Air Force and Navy veterans, for example, wouldn't know
the significance of an Army officer wearing a slouch hat or what the patch on
their right shoulder represents.

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter R.]

On 7/10/2007 1:29:34 AM, Clark wrote:

> Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I won't
> type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.

I believe you have misunderstood the poster's intent. Based on my
interpretation, he was stating that he doesn't understand why a former
Navy/Vietnam vet would not know the importance of a flyby. I will go out on a
limb here to suggest that he was in no way suggesting any disrespect for
either the Navy or a Vietnam Vet status.

Reread his post to see if that makes sense.

--
Peter

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
>> posted:
>>
>>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>>
>>>
>>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>>
>>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written
>>> apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>>
>> [...]
>>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
>> [...]
>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>
>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>
>> Neil
>
> Hey, Neil!
>
> Ever heard of a dude by the name of John McCain?
>
> He's running for president, ya know!
>
> {Ignorance is bliss}
>
Hey Matt!!

What does that have to do with the question at hand: what Vet wouldn't
know the significance of a flyby formation???

Neil

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:54:55 +0000, Tina wrote:
>
>> Your note suggests both gross ignorance on the part of the letter writer,
>> and of the newspaper for publishing such a letter.
>
> I don't know about the second. Consider the story with which this thread
> started. The author - and everyone that read the entire dialog in the
> newspaper - learned a valuable lesson. A bit of ignorance and
> small-mindedness was defeated.

Maybe. Of all the letters-to-the editor that a newspaper receives, why
publish the original?
What if no one had responded to the letter?

(An understanding of the Arizona Repugnat and their editors might provide an
insight)

> Publishing ignorant letters is an opportunity. Better that then have
> those people quietly voting out of their ignorance, no?
>
> Of course, it would be even better if newspapers actually sought answers,
> but that doesn't seem to be a part of journalism (with a few exceptions)
> anymore. Rather, they tend to just accept what they're told and even
> sometimes publish these "facts" w/o any qualification (ie. "fact" rather
> than "fact according to ...").

And many times the accept what they're told because it fits their agenda.
(See previous remarks about the AZ RePukeLic).

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:38:41 -0500, "Neil Gould" >
> wrote:
>
>>What does that have to do with the question at hand: what Vet wouldn't
>>know the significance of a flyby formation???
>
> I don't find it that far-fetched that someone NOT involved in aviation
> would not
> know the traditions of the aviation branches. Maybe the guy had been a
> submariner, or served in a small port with not aviation presence.
>
> Works both ways. Many Air Force and Navy veterans, for example, wouldn't
> know
> the significance of an Army officer wearing a slouch hat or what the patch
> on
> their right shoulder represents.
>
And until they did the break away as part of the "Missing Man Formation",
there would have been little to distinguish them from any other formation
flying in the vicinity of an AF base.

How many military and non-military types see F-16's buzzing around and turn
green with ENVY?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 7/10/2007 1:29:34 AM, Clark wrote:
>
>> Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I won't
>> type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.
>
> I believe you have misunderstood the poster's intent. Based on my
> interpretation, he was stating that he doesn't understand why a former
> Navy/Vietnam vet would not know the importance of a flyby. I will go out
> on a
> limb here to suggest that he was in no way suggesting any disrespect for
> either the Navy or a Vietnam Vet status.
>
> Reread his post to see if that makes sense.

Nope. No change.

His question, paraphrased, was, "How could a Navy vet also be a Vietnam
vet". I see nothing to connotate the letter writers misunderstanding a
Missing Man Formation.

If you can detect otherwise, please show us.

[El Maximo]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>
> How many military and non-military types see F-16's buzzing around and
> turn green with ENVY?
>


You can count me as one of the green!

[Al G[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7/10/2007 1:29:34 AM, Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I won't
>>> type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.
>>
>> I believe you have misunderstood the poster's intent. Based on my
>> interpretation, he was stating that he doesn't understand why a former
>> Navy/Vietnam vet would not know the importance of a flyby. I will go out
>> on a
>> limb here to suggest that he was in no way suggesting any disrespect for
>> either the Navy or a Vietnam Vet status.
>>
>> Reread his post to see if that makes sense.
>
> Nope. No change.
>
> His question, paraphrased, was, "How could a Navy vet also be a Vietnam
> vet". I see nothing to connotate the letter writers misunderstanding a
> Missing Man Formation.
>
> If you can detect otherwise, please show us.
>

That's how I took it. If I am incorrect, I apologize to the OP.

Al G

[Bob Crawford]

Matt,

His (Neil Gould) original post listed 2 statements (each containing
unfortunately 2 clauses), namely:

"[...]
> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
[...]
> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
"

He then asked "Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?"

I believe that your paraphrasing of his question is incorrect and
inaccurate.
Subsequent posts by Neil (i.e. "What does that have to do with the
question at hand: what Vet wouldn't
know the significance of a flyby formation???") further support that
contention.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you.

On Jul 10, 1:00 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 7/10/2007 1:29:34 AM, Clark wrote:
>
> >> Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I won't
> >> type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.
>
> > I believe you have misunderstood the poster's intent. Based on my
> > interpretation, he was stating that he doesn't understand why a former
> > Navy/Vietnam vet would not know the importance of a flyby. I will go out
> > on a
> > limb here to suggest that he was in no way suggesting any disrespect for
> > either the Navy or a Vietnam Vet status.
>
> > Reread his post to see if that makes sense.
>
> Nope. No change.
>
> His question, paraphrased, was, "How could a Navy vet also be a Vietnam
> vet". I see nothing to connotate the letter writers misunderstanding a
> Missing Man Formation.
>
> If you can detect otherwise, please show us.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> Nope. No change.
>
> His question, paraphrased, was, "How could a Navy vet also be a
> Vietnam vet". I see nothing to connotate the letter writers
> misunderstanding a Missing Man Formation.
>
> If you can detect otherwise, please show us.

Below, between the ----- is what was in Neil's post.


-------
> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>
>
> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>
> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written apology
> which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>
[...]
> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
[...]
> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>
Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?

Neil
---------


If he had done a little snipping he would have posted this.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
[...]
> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
[...]
> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>
Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?

Neil
XXXXXXXXXXXX



Statement Number 1

> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.

Statement Number 2

> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.

[Peter R.]

On 7/10/2007 2:21:41 PM, Clark wrote:

> His post is ambiguous at best. My interpretation is reasonable even though
> it may or may not have been the author's intent. I'll maintain my stance
> on the author's nature.

Very well. We all need a cause and it appears that you have advanced yours.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

On 7/10/2007 2:20:06 PM, Clark wrote:

> I told you that I wouldn't type what I'm thinking. Why do you ask? Think
> I'll change my mind?

Too proud to admit you made a mistake, eh?

--
Peter

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 7/10/2007 1:29:34 AM, Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I
>>> won't type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.
>>
>> I believe you have misunderstood the poster's intent. Based on my
>> interpretation, he was stating that he doesn't understand why a
>> former Navy/Vietnam vet would not know the importance of a flyby. I
>> will go out on a
>> limb here to suggest that he was in no way suggesting any disrespect
>> for either the Navy or a Vietnam Vet status.
>>
>> Reread his post to see if that makes sense.
>
> Nope. No change.
>
> His question, paraphrased, was, "How could a Navy vet also be a
> Vietnam vet". I see nothing to connotate the letter writers
> misunderstanding a Missing Man Formation.
>
That was NOT my original question; Peter R. got it right. I don't know
where you're coming from at all, Matt.

> If you can detect otherwise, please show us.
>
Go read the original post until you get it.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Al G > posted:
>
> That's how I took it. If I am incorrect, I apologize to the OP.
>
You are incorrect. Apology appreciated. ;-)

Neil

[Peter R.]

On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:

> Do you have a point?

Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and seemingly
damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of disrespecting Navy
or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to explain himself you still
stand by the opinion that he did.

As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have been
misinterpreted by the reader...



--
Peter

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:53:28 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> And many times the accept what they're told because it fits their agenda.

Perhaps, but I'll assume laziness and stupidity by default before malice.
My opinion of journalists is that low, I suppose <laugh>.

The Public editor had an editorial in last Sunday's times which complained
about this sort of laziness in that paper. The result of at least the
cited examples was that this supposedly left-leaning paper was supporting
the current administration's agenda. Not impossible, I suppose, but it's
more likely the result of stupid and/or lazy journalists than a real bias
in favor of the current administration.

- Andrew

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Clark > posted:

> "Peter R." > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Do you have a point?
>>
>> Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and
>> seemingly damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of
>> disrespecting Navy or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to
>> explain himself you still stand by the opinion that he did.
>>
> You are leaping to an unsupported conclusion.
>
There is no leaping involved, given that I've explained my original
question in plain language, more than once.

>> As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have
>> been misinterpreted by the reader...
>>
> Or maybe it was interpreted correctly by the reader? That's the
> nature of the beast since the author's statement can legitimately be
> taken either way.
>
When it was clear to me that you misinterpreted my intended question, I
clarified it. Others clarified it, as well. So, even if the original
question was as ambiguous as you thought it was, there is no legitimate
reason to continue to think that I was in any way disrespecting Navy or
Vietnam vets. Indeed, I lost too many good friends in that fight to sully
their memory in that way.

As for you changing your mind, for whatever reason; I really don't care
whether you do or not. Think whatever you want. But, I will continue to
make it obvious to other readers of this thread where I stand, and then
they can make up their own minds about your nature.

Neil




If you want to defend the author, fine, have at it.
> Expect others to acquiesce to your badgering? Forget it.

[John[_1_]]

On Jul 9, 3:58 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
> posted:
>
> > According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
> >http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>
> > There was another letter that continued this topic.
>
> > To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written apology
> > which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>
> [...]
> > I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
> > insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
> [...]
> > I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>
> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>
> Neil

No, absolutely none at all.

John

[Peter R.]

On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:

> Expect others to
> acquiesce to your badgering?

My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Bob Crawford" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Matt,
>
> His (Neil Gould) original post listed 2 statements (each containing
> unfortunately 2 clauses), namely:
>
> "[...]
>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
> [...]
>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
> "
>
> He then asked "Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
> statements?"
>
> I believe that your paraphrasing of his question is incorrect and
> inaccurate.
> Subsequent posts by Neil (i.e. "What does that have to do with the
> question at hand: what Vet wouldn't
> know the significance of a flyby formation???") further support that
> contention.
>
> Hopefully that's clear enough for you.

Okay! What I took his two statements in conflict to mean was "Navy" and
"Vietnam vet".

My bad!

Yet, as a few others have pointed out, unless you're into aviation in some
way, the Missing Man Formation would be totally meaningless, regardless of
what non-aviation branch you were in.

To them, it's just a bunch of planes flying close together.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 7/10/2007 2:21:41 PM, Clark wrote:
>
>> His post is ambiguous at best. My interpretation is reasonable even
>> though
>> it may or may not have been the author's intent. I'll maintain my stance
>> on the author's nature.
>
> Very well. We all need a cause and it appears that you have advanced
> yours.
>

As with yourself.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:
>
>> Do you have a point?
>
> Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and
> seemingly
> damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of disrespecting
> Navy
> or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to explain himself you still
> stand by the opinion that he did.
>
> As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have been
> misinterpreted by the reader...
>

So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:
>
>> Expect others to
>> acquiesce to your badgering?
>
> My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.

Funny thing is, you never badgered the OP.

Doesn't that seem funny, given that several people took it the same way.

Reminds one of the people that endless excuses for their kids.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:53:28 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> And many times the accept what they're told because it fits their agenda.
>
> Perhaps, but I'll assume laziness and stupidity by default before malice.
> My opinion of journalists is that low, I suppose <laugh>.

Never count out malice. :~)

Quite frankly, I've learned to give that priority until something
substantial says otherwise.

>
> The Public editor had an editorial in last Sunday's times which complained
> about this sort of laziness in that paper. The result of at least the
> cited examples was that this supposedly left-leaning paper was supporting
> the current administration's agenda. Not impossible, I suppose, but it's
> more likely the result of stupid and/or lazy journalists than a real bias
> in favor of the current administration.


Then there's always that category called "Both".

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in news:soKki.9546$Rw1.4923
> @newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Recently, Clark > posted:
>>
>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
>>> news:5swki.21165$RX.2146 @newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
>>>
>>>> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
>>>> posted:
>>>>
>>>>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written
>>>>> apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>>>>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>>>
>>>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>>>
>>> Not at all. My first real world boss was Navy and a Vietnam vet. I
>>> won't type what I'm thinking about your nature, but it isn't good.
>>>
>> The "two statements" imply that a military vet wouldn't understand the
>> significance of a formation flyby. Is that a reason to have bad thoughts
>> about my nature? If so, please do type it for my enlightenment.

Your nature is to presumption and malice. How 'bout that. One thing about
presumptuousness is that it often hides ignorance (not naiveté, in this
case), such as assuming that all vets understand flyovers. In the other
case, it shows a tremendous ignorance (or possibly just naiveté) regarding
Navy action in Vietnam.

>>
> I told you that I wouldn't type what I'm thinking. Why do you ask? Think
> I'll change my mind?

Okay, let Neil keep making excuses.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter R." > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 7/10/2007 2:20:06 PM, Clark wrote:
>>
>>> I told you that I wouldn't type what I'm thinking. Why do you ask? Think
>>> I'll change my mind?
>>
>> Too proud to admit you made a mistake, eh?

Peter!

SIWTSDS.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 7/10/2007 2:20:06 PM, Clark wrote:
>
>> I told you that I wouldn't type what I'm thinking. Why do you ask? Think
>> I'll change my mind?
>
> Too proud to admit you made a mistake, eh?


Hey Peter!

Pot, Kettle...

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>
> Okay! What I took his two statements in conflict to mean was "Navy"
> and "Vietnam vet".
>
That makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, that is _one_ statement, not
two. And, there are plenty of Navy vets who served in Vietnam.

> My bad!
>
Indeed! ;-)

> Yet, as a few others have pointed out, unless you're into aviation in
> some way, the Missing Man Formation would be totally meaningless,
> regardless of what non-aviation branch you were in.
>
> To them, it's just a bunch of planes flying close together.
>
Well, that's why I posed it as a question, not a statement of fact. ;-)

From my perspective, anyone old enough to have served in Vietnam, vetran
or otherwise, should be rather familiar with formation flybys (it's not
clear that the Missing Man was executed at the time). If there isn't an
air show going on, it would be the first thing that would occur to me.
And, given the number of casualties in the Vietnam conflict, I would have
thought that any vet would have had many opportunities to witness such a
flyby. But, then, that's my perspective and not a matter of fact, ergo,
the question.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>
> Your nature is to presumption and malice. How 'bout that. One thing
> about presumptuousness is that it often hides ignorance (not naiveté,
> in this case), such as assuming that all vets understand flyovers. In
> the other case, it shows a tremendous ignorance (or possibly just
> naiveté) regarding Navy action in Vietnam.
>
Talk about presumption and ignorance... why would you extract *anything*
regarding "Navy action in Vietnam" from the original question? It makes no
sense whatsoever.

Just for your edification, one of my closest friends served in the Navy in
Vietnam. And, who could forget the whole "Swiftboat" business, or the F4s
and other Navy aircraft that were carrier-based, not to mention the fleet
stationed there? It would be kind of hard *not* to know of Navy action in
Vietnam unless you were born since then and lived in an opaque bubble.

Face it, Matt, you went off on a bizarre tangent that only underscores
your misreading of the original question.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good.

Better still, keep to the topic, and skip the personal attacks.

[Peter R.]

On 7/11/2007 6:08:12 PM, Clark wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Expect others to
>>> acquiesce to your badgering?
>>
>> My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.
>>
>
> Yes, badgering.

Yawn.

--
Peter

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>>>> Expect others to
>>>> acquiesce to your badgering?
>>> My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.
>> Yes, badgering.
>Yawn.
>

It was refreshing to see the apology posted in the paper.
This thread would probably be much shorter if others tried it.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Arnold Sten wrote:
> GA Pilots are not the only pilots who are subject to noise complaints.
> Read this story:
>
>
> Subject: A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB, AZ
>
> Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being
> surrounded by civilization that complains about the
> noise from the base and its planes, forgetting that it
> was there long before they were.
>
> A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a
> big pat on the back. Apparently, an individual who
> lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote the local paper
> complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed
> his/her day at the mall. When that individual read the
> response from a Luke AFB officer, it must have stung
> quite a bit.
>
> The complaint:
> "Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do
> we thank for the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at
> precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight formation of four F-16
> jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall, continuing
> west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet.
>
> Imagine our good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes
> feel we need this wake-up call, or were they trying to
> impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird special? Any
> response would be appreciated."
>
>
> The response:
> Regarding "A wake-up call from Luke's jets" (Letters,
> Thursday): On June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a
> perfectly timed four-ship flyby of F-16s from the 63rd
> Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over the
> grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques.
>
> Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was
> previously stationed at Luke Air Force Base and was
> killed in Iraq on May 30, Memorial Day. At 9 a.m. on
> June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland
> Memorial Park in Sun City to mourn the loss of a
> husband, son and friend.
>
> Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby,
> and because of the jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear
> the 21-gun salute, the playing of taps, or my words to
> the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave them
> their son's flag on behalf of the President of the
> United States and all those veterans and servicemen and
> women who understand the sacrifices they have endured.
> A four-ship flyby is a display of respect
> the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in
> defense of freedom.
>
> We are professional aviators and take our jobs
> seriously, and on June 15 what the letter writer
> witnessed was four officers lining up to pay their
> ultimate respects.
>
> The letter writer asks, "Whom do we thank for the
> morning air show?" The 56th Fighter Wing will call for
> you, and forward your thanks to the widow and parents
> of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was
> in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable
> formation of their lives.
>
> Lt. Col. Scott Pleus
> CO, 63rd Fighter Squadron
> Luke AFB
I have a slightly different read on this incident.

It goes without saying that the ceremony was totally justified and in
line with all existing regulations. That isn't the real issue here.
Neither is the letter written by the complainant.
The real issue here is that the AF Col who answered the letter in my
opinion used extremely poor judgment in handling the situation the way
he did.
He used information that HE had at his disposal that was NOT available
to the complainant at the time the complainant wrote the letter, to
attempt to embarrass and hurt the complainant with the reply.
Had the Col prior knowledge that the complainant KNEW about the ceremony
and THEN wrote the letter, his answer in my opinion would have been
justified.
In my opinion, the Col's INITIAL response was unjustified and
unnecessarily cruel. Although it is understandable that he, being aware
of the circumstances involved, would be taken back by the complainant's
letter, his initial response should have been to reply in a
non-threatening manner, informing the complainant of the situation
involving the overflight giving the complainant an opportunity to
retract. By doing what he did, the Col in my opinion unnecessarily
deeply hurt an innocent person who had absolutely no idea that there
were extenuating circumstances involving a fallen comrade. From the
complainant's VOLUNTARY and IMMEDIATE retraction, it is clear that the
Col succeeded.
My read on this is bad judgment on the part of the Col caused by his
natural concern and deep feelings for the ceremony and the people
involved with it.
If I was Soloman, which I am not, and had the chance to talk to this
Col, I would explain what I have said here gently and with a deep
understanding for what he must have been feeling at the time. But make
no mistake; I would do my best to impress upon him the wrong path he
took in handling this delicate matter and encourage him to think twice
if faced with a similar incident again.
Dudley Henriques
President Emeritus
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
(has flown missing man formations)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
> posted:
>
>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>
>>
>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>
>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written apology
>> which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>
> [...]
>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
> [...]
>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>
> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>
> Neil
>
>
Not at all. The first statement obviously is a referral to THIS SPECIFIC
flyby and indicates that the complainant was unaware that the flyby
involved a ceremony.
The second statement is a simple comment that indicates the complainant
was a veteran and had he known it was a cerimonial flyby would NOT have
written his letter.
I see no "sinister" indications here. I'm assuming you are referring to
a veteran having no idea what the significence of the flyby would be and
therefore suspect?
I don't see that at all.
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:00:10 -0400, Arnold Sten
> wrote:

>GA Pilots are not the only pilots who are subject to noise complaints.
>Read this story:

On the lighter side, from what I hear around the airport, Hanscom
tower (BED) routinely gets noise complaints for military aircraft
arrivals/departures (fighters and transports).

Even when the flight doesn't actually happen, or lands hours removed
from the originally scheduled time.

I'd love to be on the receiving end of that call and free to tell the
person making the completely fictitious complaint exactly how stupid
they are. Anyone caught making fictitious noise complaints should
also be prohibited from filing any subsequent noise complaints.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:42:22 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> My read on this is bad judgment on the part of the Col caused by his
> natural concern and deep feelings for the ceremony and the people involved
> with it.

What about the presumption on the part of the part of the letter writer
that the flight was "inappropriate" in some way?

More, we're speaking of a flight at 9:11am. Not 5:11am. And near a
shopping mall; not a hospital or school or other noise-sensitive
environment.

And we're not speaking of an inquiry to the base, but a letter published
in the local (or so I presume) paper.

The response could have been more gentle, but I'm not convinced that the
author deserves the label "innocent".

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:03:17 -0400, Peter Clark wrote:

> I'd love to be on the receiving end of that call and free to tell the
> person making the completely fictitious complaint exactly how stupid they
> are. Anyone caught making fictitious noise complaints should also be
> prohibited from filing any subsequent noise complaints.

I hope they track/record these false complaints. It should do wonders for
the credibility of these "witnesses" should they ever try to seriously
push the noise issue.

- Andrew

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:42:22 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> My read on this is bad judgment on the part of the Col caused by his
>> natural concern and deep feelings for the ceremony and the people involved
>> with it.
>
> What about the presumption on the part of the part of the letter writer
> that the flight was "inappropriate" in some way?
>
> More, we're speaking of a flight at 9:11am. Not 5:11am. And near a
> shopping mall; not a hospital or school or other noise-sensitive
> environment.
>
> And we're not speaking of an inquiry to the base, but a letter published
> in the local (or so I presume) paper.
>
> The response could have been more gentle, but I'm not convinced that the
> author deserves the label "innocent".
>
> - Andrew
>

It's assumed that the complainant thought he had a gripe with the base
concerning the low level of the overflight. It must also be assumed that
the complainant had no way of knowing the flight was being conducted
under the circumstances it was. Complaints like this one are registered
almost daily in communities surrounding Air Bases.
It is a fact that in the flying military complaints like this one are
handled in a manner inconsistent with this Col's actions.
When I say bad judgment I don't mean the complainant was right and the
Col wrong. What I'm saying is that the Col, if nothing else, missed a
tremendous opportunity to make his point much more powerful than it was
by taking the high road instead of his obvious tone of reproach in
answering the complainant's letter.
The Col made his case all right, but he did it the wrong way. He simply
"nailed" the complainant. What he should have done and could have done
had he done it the right way, was to totally DESTROY the complainant.
What he should have done was answer the complainant's letter in a
completely neutral, non confrontational manner, simply stating what the
circumstances were and making it a POINT to avoid appearing as though he
was striking back. By doing this with a velvet glove instead of an axe,
his response would have been much more powerful and the effect of his
response much more positive within the community.
In other words, the Col missed the chance to kill two birds with the
same stone. I'm sure he generated sympathy in the community, but by
using a totally controlled and well thought out answer instead of the
one he used, he scored a win where he could have scored a HUGE win for
the base.
There are many ways to do things; the wrong way; the right way; and the
SMART way :-))
BTW; I whizzed this one by an old friend of mine who used to be a Public
Affairs Officer for the Thunderbirds. He agrees. The Col could have
scored a higher mark on this one. What he did wrong specifically was to
miss the opportunity to not only correct a bad situation, but make a
friend out of the complainant in the process of doing that. Instead, he
simply corrected the situation by using a hammer on the complainant.
Bad juju in a world where the military needs friends in the civilian
community.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Dudley Henriques > posted:
>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
>>> posted:
>>>
>>>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>>>
>>>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written
>>>> apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>>>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
>>> [...]
>>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>>
>>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>> Not at all. The first statement obviously is a referral to THIS
>> SPECIFIC flyby and indicates that the complainant was unaware that
>> the flyby involved a ceremony.
>> The second statement is a simple comment that indicates the
>> complainant was a veteran and had he known it was a cerimonial flyby
>> would NOT have written his letter.
>> I see no "sinister" indications here. I'm assuming you are referring
>> to a veteran having no idea what the significence of the flyby would
>> be and therefore suspect?
>> I don't see that at all.
>>
> Just to be clear, I see no "sinister" indications, either. I wondered
> about anyone, especially a vet, not at least thinking that a low-level
> formation flyby might be part of a ceremony. It's the first thing that
> would have occurred to me, but perhaps I've just seen too many of them?
> Also, it took some time to reflect on the incident in order to write the
> letter to the newspaper, and that may have triggered a recollection, too.
> So, I asked the question, and accept from the responses of others that it
> not would be all that unusual.
>
> BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
> although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
> possibility than he was.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
I understand what you are saying. It would have occured to me as well.
The interesting thing about the position I have taken on this is that
the complainant is actually irrelevant in the equation. His letter for
my position is nothing more or less than a useful tool that might have
been used by the Col to a better advantage.
It was a gambit declined....a stalemate achieved where checkmate was
obvious. :-)

Dudley Henriques

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:42:22 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> My read on this is bad judgment on the part of the Col caused by his
>> natural concern and deep feelings for the ceremony and the people
>> involved
>> with it.
>
> What about the presumption on the part of the part of the letter writer
> that the flight was "inappropriate" in some way?
>
> More, we're speaking of a flight at 9:11am. Not 5:11am. And near a
> shopping mall; not a hospital or school or other noise-sensitive
> environment.
>
> And we're not speaking of an inquiry to the base, but a letter published
> in the local (or so I presume) paper.
>
> The response could have been more gentle, but I'm not convinced that the
> author deserves the label "innocent".
>
I suspect that the Colonel's response would have been more informative,
rather than brutal, if the letter writers comments had not come off in such
a smartassed manner.

If the writers question had been formed something like. "...what's with the
low flying planes?", the colonel's response would NOT have been justified.

In fact, I'd say the whole issue of "Missing Man formation", is almost
negligible. My first take on the original writer was of a snot-nosed,
teen-aged punk, certainly not an adult, a veteran in his later 50's. That
"ghetto mentality" is, unfortunately, too much a part of our culture
anymore.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dudley Henriques > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) >
>> posted:
>>
>>> According to Snopes.com, this incident was in 2005.
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/wakeup.asp
>>>
>>>
>>> There was another letter that continued this topic.
>>>
>>> To his credit, the complainant, Mr. MacRae, tendered a written
>>> apology which was published in The Republic on 9 July:
>>>
>> [...]
>>> I had no idea of the significance of the flyby, and would never have
>>> insulted such a fine and respectful display had I known.
>> [...]
>>> I served in the U.S. Navy and am a Vietnam veteran.
>>>
>> Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two statements?
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
> Not at all. The first statement obviously is a referral to THIS
> SPECIFIC flyby and indicates that the complainant was unaware that
> the flyby involved a ceremony.
> The second statement is a simple comment that indicates the
> complainant was a veteran and had he known it was a cerimonial flyby
> would NOT have written his letter.
> I see no "sinister" indications here. I'm assuming you are referring
> to a veteran having no idea what the significence of the flyby would
> be and therefore suspect?
> I don't see that at all.
>
Just to be clear, I see no "sinister" indications, either. I wondered
about anyone, especially a vet, not at least thinking that a low-level
formation flyby might be part of a ceremony. It's the first thing that
would have occurred to me, but perhaps I've just seen too many of them?
Also, it took some time to reflect on the incident in order to write the
letter to the newspaper, and that may have triggered a recollection, too.
So, I asked the question, and accept from the responses of others that it
not would be all that unusual.

BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
possibility than he was.

Neil

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
>> although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
>> possibility than he was.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
> I understand what you are saying. It would have occured to me as well.
> The interesting thing about the position I have taken on this is that the
> complainant is actually irrelevant in the equation. His letter for my
> position is nothing more or less than a useful tool that might have been
> used by the Col to a better advantage.
> It was a gambit declined....a stalemate achieved where checkmate was
> obvious. :-)

Go back and re-read the first churlish, snot-nosed complaint letter again.

As I mention elssewhere, my first take was some teenaged punk, not a 50's
something vet.

Al the colonel did was state the facts.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> BTW - I agree with your conclusion that the Col. missed an opportunity,
>>> although I wouldn't expect his superior to be any more sensitive to that
>>> possibility than he was.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I understand what you are saying. It would have occured to me as well.
>> The interesting thing about the position I have taken on this is that the
>> complainant is actually irrelevant in the equation. His letter for my
>> position is nothing more or less than a useful tool that might have been
>> used by the Col to a better advantage.
>> It was a gambit declined....a stalemate achieved where checkmate was
>> obvious. :-)
>
> Go back and re-read the first churlish, snot-nosed complaint letter again.
>
> As I mention elssewhere, my first take was some teenaged punk, not a 50's
> something vet.
>
> Al the colonel did was state the facts.
>
>
I have no need to re-read what I have already read and after doing so
formed a firm opinion. You and I are simply in disagreement on this. The
entire discussion is moot as are most discussions like this one on Usenet.
Opinions on past actions by others are simply opinions. Mine will not
change by re-reading the complainant's letter. As I said, the
complainant, his attitude, and his letter are not relevant in my position.
If you believe the Col "simply stated the facts", that is your position.
I respect that and have no desire whatsoever to "push" my position on
the matter any further then my passing comment on the matter and least
of all to indicate someone else's position is wrong.
Such is Usenet :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Bob Crawford]

On Jul 13, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I respect that and have no desire whatsoever to "push" my position on
> the matter any further then my passing comment on the matter and least
> of all to indicate someone else's position is wrong.

> Such is Usenet :-)

(just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
statements?
;-) ;-)

[El Maximo]

"Bob Crawford" > wrote in message
> (just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
> statements?
> ;-) ;-)
>

BOHICA!!!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob Crawford wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I respect that and have no desire whatsoever to "push" my position on
>> the matter any further then my passing comment on the matter and least
>> of all to indicate someone else's position is wrong.
>
>> Such is Usenet :-)
>
> (just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
> statements?
> ;-) ;-)
>
>
>

The old "double entendre" works again :-))) Such is Usenet :-)))
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Crawford wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> I respect that and have no desire whatsoever to "push" my position on
>>> the matter any further then my passing comment on the matter and least
>>> of all to indicate someone else's position is wrong.
>>
>>> Such is Usenet :-)
>>
>> (just have to ask) Anyone else have trouble reconciling these two
>> statements?
>> ;-) ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
> The old "double entendre" works again :-))) Such is Usenet :-)))
> Dudley Henriques

Well, you're wrong: Usenet is not a "such', it's a "whom"! :~@

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:03:17 -0400, Peter Clark wrote:
>
> > I'd love to be on the receiving end of that call and free to tell the
> > person making the completely fictitious complaint exactly how stupid they
> > are. Anyone caught making fictitious noise complaints should also be
> > prohibited from filing any subsequent noise complaints.
>
> I hope they track/record these false complaints. It should do wonders for
> the credibility of these "witnesses" should they ever try to seriously
> push the noise issue.

It is my understanding that they do know who is complaining. At least that's
what I was told by the tower folks a few years back.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[dgs[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Matt Barrow writes:
>
>> So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good.
>
> Better still, keep to the topic

You've repeatedly proven unable to keep to the topic in just about every
newsgroup in which
you've posted, particularly rec.travel.europe.

Better still, ignore any such exhortations from Anthony "Mxsmanic"
Atkielski, known Usenet
troll and hypocrite.
--
dgs