The Angry White Man

[TheRealDeal]

I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit
this class group.


There is a great amount of interest in this year’s
presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that
our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush.
The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking
candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the
conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their
party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of
special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and
transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to
working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the
group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man.
The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds,
from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic
areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck,
deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything
from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own
way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an
independent businessman and employs several people. He pays
more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,”
“marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him.
“Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used
to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas
party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a
beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally,
not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of
a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in
their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick
up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing
to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of
others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing
really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a
victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he
got his people together and got the hell out, then went back
in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help
themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard
soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background
might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or
Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto
Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker,
watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play
golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon,
change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball,
soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s
the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a
couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for
his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a
train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power
plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know
what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man,
not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all
over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight,
opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he
might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is
more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a
rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when
people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies
the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give
everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules
and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is ****ed off. When his
job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay
taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously
angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to
speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech
support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading
some rally for reparations for slavery or some such
nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child
gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly
bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the
local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary
Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock.
He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very
image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would
want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s
that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she
panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her
inability to give a straight answer to an honest question,
his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse
to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million
Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle
Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary
Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George
Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for
president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets
beaten like a drum.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-23, TheRealDeal > wrote:
> I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit
> this class group.

Quite possible. However, I object:

> The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a

Don't be sure he's not gay. There are plenty of gay men who otherwise fit
this profile. Don't write them off.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Steve Foley]

"TheRealDeal" > wrote in message
...
>I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit this class
>group.

I do not.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 22, 11:39 pm, TheRealDeal > wrote:
> I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit
> this class group.
>
> There is a great amount of interest in this year's
> presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that
> our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush.
> The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking
> candidates -- a woman and an African-American -- while the
> conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their
> party's nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
>
> Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of
> special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and
> transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to
> working mothers to evangelical Christians.
>
> There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the
> group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man.
> The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds,
> from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic
> areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck,
> deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
>
> His common traits are that he isn't looking for anything
> from anyone -- just the promise to be able to make his own
> way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an
> independent businessman and employs several people. He pays
> more than his share of taxes and works hard.
>
> The victimhood syndrome buzzwords -- "disenfranchised,"
> "marginalized" and "voiceless" -- don't resonate with him.
> "Press 'one' for English" is a curse-word to him. He's used
> to picking up the tab, whether it's the company Christmas
> party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a
> beautiful wedding.
>
> He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally,
> not as a "living document" open to the whims and vagaries of
> a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in
> their lives.
>
> The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he's willing to pick
> up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing
> to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of
> others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing
> really doesn't bother him.
>
> The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a
> victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina -- he
> got his people together and got the hell out, then went back
> in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help
> themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard
> soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
>
> His last name and religion don't matter. His background
> might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or
> Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto
> Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
>
> He's a man's man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker,
> watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play
> golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon,
> change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball,
> soccer and football teams and doesn't ask for a penny. He's
> the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a
> couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for
> his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a
> train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power
> plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know
> what it took to flip that light switch.
>
> Women either love him or hate him, but they know he's a man,
> not a dishrag. If they're looking for someone to walk all
> over, they've got the wrong guy. He stands up straight,
> opens doors for women and says "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am."
>
> He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he
> might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is
> more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a
> rational manner.
>
> He's not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when
> people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies
> the worst stereotypes of their race. He's willing to give
> everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules
> and learn English.
>
> Most important, the Angry White Man is ****ed off. When his
> job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay
> taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously
> angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to
> speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech
> support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading
> some rally for reparations for slavery or some such
> nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child
> gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly
> bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the
> local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
>
> He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary
> Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock.
> He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very
> image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would
> want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's
> that she is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she
> panders to, the "poor me" attitude that she represents, her
> inability to give a straight answer to an honest question,
> his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse
> to do anything for themselves.
>
> There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million
> Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle
> Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary
> Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George
> Bush.
>
> He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for
> president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets
> beaten like a drum.

What about the angry yellow men? Where do we fit in? lol

Wil

[Bob Martin]

William Hung wrote:
> On Feb 22, 11:39 pm, TheRealDeal > wrote:
>> I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit
>> this class group.
>>
>> There is a great amount of interest in this year's
>> presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that
>> our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush.
>> The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking
>> candidates -- a woman and an African-American -- while the
>> conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their
>> party's nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
>>
<snip>
>
> What about the angry yellow men? Where do we fit in? lol
>
> Wil

Like Will and Jay said... it's not just straight white guys. Or even male, for that
matter. Maybe "angry, tax-paying, self-sufficient American."

[The3rdRail]

Bob Martin wrote:
> William Hung wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 11:39 pm, TheRealDeal > wrote:
>>> I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit
>>> this class group.
>>>
>>> There is a great amount of interest in this year's
>>> presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that
>>> our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush.
>>> The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking
>>> candidates -- a woman and an African-American -- while the
>>> conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their
>>> party's nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
>>>
> <snip>
>>
>> What about the angry yellow men? Where do we fit in? lol
>>
>> Wil
>
> Like Will and Jay said... it's not just straight white guys. Or even
> male, for that matter.

"Maybe "angry, tax-paying, self-sufficient American."

From a percentage perspective those that are "self
sufficient" in America would be mostly white males. Most
other groups are dependent and suck off the past and present
accomplishments of that "Angry white male" or they suck off
the Government

It is one reason the FAA is so ****ed up. They have
alienated and ****ed off and disrespected the "Qualified
Angry White Male" to the point of near chaos in the ranks.

The FAA is operated or more accurately being "Steered toward
the rocks" by mostly inside the DC beltway FemiNazi's and
Minorities and white male sycophants. The "Balls" in the FAA
are measured with a microscope. FAA Headquarters in D.C. is
Gay and Vagina and Sycophant Land. The FAA is eventually
doomed like some obscure wing of the Roman Empire in charge
of puke tanks and baths.

FAA CIVIL RIGHTS SCAM

The "Angry White Male" will be a major force soon. Better
learn to deal with it.If the economy goes Tango Uniform it
could get ugly. The last time that happened in America that
"Angry White Male" seized total control. It may happen again.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 23, 4:50 am, William Hung > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 11:39 pm, TheRealDeal > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit
> > this class group.
>
> > There is a great amount of interest in this year's
> > presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that
> > our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush.
> > The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking
> > candidates -- a woman and an African-American -- while the
> > conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their
> > party's nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
>
> > Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of
> > special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and
> > transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to
> > working mothers to evangelical Christians.
>
> > There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the
> > group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man.
> > The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds,
> > from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic
> > areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck,
> > deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
>
> > His common traits are that he isn't looking for anything
> > from anyone -- just the promise to be able to make his own
> > way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an
> > independent businessman and employs several people. He pays
> > more than his share of taxes and works hard.
>
> > The victimhood syndrome buzzwords -- "disenfranchised,"
> > "marginalized" and "voiceless" -- don't resonate with him.
> > "Press 'one' for English" is a curse-word to him. He's used
> > to picking up the tab, whether it's the company Christmas
> > party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a
> > beautiful wedding.
>
> > He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally,
> > not as a "living document" open to the whims and vagaries of
> > a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in
> > their lives.
>
> > The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he's willing to pick
> > up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing
> > to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of
> > others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing
> > really doesn't bother him.
>
> > The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a
> > victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina -- he
> > got his people together and got the hell out, then went back
> > in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help
> > themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard
> > soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
>
> > His last name and religion don't matter. His background
> > might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or
> > Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto
> > Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.
>
> > He's a man's man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker,
> > watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play
> > golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon,
> > change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball,
> > soccer and football teams and doesn't ask for a penny. He's
> > the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a
> > couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for
> > his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a
> > train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power
> > plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know
> > what it took to flip that light switch.
>
> > Women either love him or hate him, but they know he's a man,
> > not a dishrag. If they're looking for someone to walk all
> > over, they've got the wrong guy. He stands up straight,
> > opens doors for women and says "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am."
>
> > He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he
> > might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is
> > more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a
> > rational manner.
>
> > He's not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when
> > people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies
> > the worst stereotypes of their race. He's willing to give
> > everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules
> > and learn English.
>
> > Most important, the Angry White Man is ****ed off. When his
> > job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay
> > taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously
> > angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to
> > speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech
> > support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading
> > some rally for reparations for slavery or some such
> > nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child
> > gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly
> > bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the
> > local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
>
> > He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary
> > Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock.
> > He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very
> > image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would
> > want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's
> > that she is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she
> > panders to, the "poor me" attitude that she represents, her
> > inability to give a straight answer to an honest question,
> > his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse
> > to do anything for themselves.
>
> > There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million
> > Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle
> > Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary
> > Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George
> > Bush.
>
> > He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for
> > president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets
> > beaten like a drum.
>
> What about the angry yellow men? Where do we fit in? lol
> Wil

Currently the oriental's have the US on welfare, and
are paying the entire US defense budget, but that's
a peace keeper.
The economy's are so well entangled that everybody
looses if we have a war.
Usually in the past, (or currently) war was financed
with a profit motive.

I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:0102c1aa-e218-4018-
:

>
> Currently the oriental's have the US on welfare, and
> are paying the entire US defense budget, but that's
> a peace keeper.
> The economy's are so well entangled that everybody
> looses if we have a war.
> Usually in the past, (or currently) war was financed
> with a profit motive.
>
> I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.

I'll bet you still don't wear seatbelts cuz you reckon you don't want to be
"trapped in the flamin' rekkej".


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
business interests.

Dan

[Steve Foley]

"William Hung" > wrote in message
news:7d21b632-15f7-4f34-97ab-

> What about the angry yellow men? Where do we fit in? lol

Depends on why you're angry.

Most of the pilots I know aren't angry anyway. I think it's a control thing.

[AJ]

Feel better now?

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Steve Foley > wrote:
>"TheRealDeal" > wrote in message
...
>>I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit this class
>>group.
>
>I do not.

Me neither.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[The3rdRail]

Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article >,
> Steve Foley > wrote:
>> "TheRealDeal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit this class
>>> group.
>> I do not.
>
> Me neither.
>

If the Federal Guvment and FAA keeps squeezing GA until you
can't AFFORD to fly you will be angry.

Wanna Bet?

The way the Fed goons will do it is with subtle but ever
increasing fuel tax. They will FORCE private pilots to

1. QUIT
2. BE RICH
3. MOVE TO SOUTH DAKOTA
4. FLY ON BATTERIES

You will be sacrificed and your airspace will be SEIZED for
the airline and air cargo business.

Wanna Bet?

Then you will be ****ED not just angry

So go ahead vote McSame or the Hilldabeast or Osama Obama
a.k.a.SOWS(Same Old Washington ****) and watch the FED GOONS
seize your **** and your flying RIGHTS bit by bit, piece by
piece.

Keep defending the FAA (Fox in the HenHouse). You will see.
But then it will be too late.

I got to go punch a hole in the sky Adios

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

The3rdRail > wrote in :

> Edward A. Falk wrote:
>> In article
>> >, Steve
>> Foley > wrote:
>>> "TheRealDeal" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I believe the vast majority of private pilots in America fit this
>>>> class group.
>>> I do not.
>>
>> Me neither.
>>
>
> If the Federal Guvment and FAA keeps squeezing GA until you
> can't AFFORD to fly you will be angry.
>
> Wanna Bet?
>
> The way the Fed goons will do it is with subtle but ever
> increasing fuel tax. They will FORCE private pilots to
>
> 1. QUIT
> 2. BE RICH
> 3. MOVE TO SOUTH DAKOTA
> 4. FLY ON BATTERIES
>

Is this an A la Carte menu?

Bertie

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > Ken
>
> Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> option, I suppose?
>
> Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> business interests.
>

Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
much economic damage to everyone involved.

Written in 1912.

-JTD

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 12:29 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
> On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > Ken
>
> > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > option, I suppose?
>
> > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > business interests.
>
> Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> much economic damage to everyone involved.
>
> Written in 1912.
>
> -JTD

Messy divorces are proof that emotions trumps economic interest every
time.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
> On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > Ken
>
> > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > option, I suppose?
>
> > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > business interests.
>
> Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> much economic damage to everyone involved.
> Written in 1912.
> -JTD

That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.
Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.
Ken

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

The3rdRail wrote:

>
>I got to go punch a hole in the sky Adios
jeezuz I wish someone would punch a hole in your F**kin' head.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200802/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
:

>
>
> That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> told they should.


What bout fuedin'?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:804544c766b81@uwe:

> The3rdRail wrote:
>
>>
>>I got to go punch a hole in the sky Adios
> jeezuz I wish someone would punch a hole in your F**kin' head.
>

Too late!

bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
> :
>
>
>
> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> > told they should.
>
> What bout fuedin'?
>
> Bertie

Now that's jes plain fun...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
>> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
>> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
>> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
>> > told they should.
>>
>> What bout fuedin'?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Now that's jes plain fun...

You reckin?


bertie

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > > option, I suppose?
>
> > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > > business interests.
>
> > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> > digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> > one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> > respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> > explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> > trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> > much economic damage to everyone involved.
> > Written in 1912.
> > -JTD
>
> That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> ICBM's because the other are guys are.

ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.

> Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> told they should.

Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
from devolving into war?

-JTD

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
> :
>
>
>
> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> > told they should.
>
> What bout fuedin'?

The sport of kings! :-)

-JTD

> Bertie

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 12:52 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 12:29 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > > option, I suppose?
>
> > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > > business interests.
>
> > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> > digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> > one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> > respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> > explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> > trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> > much economic damage to everyone involved.
>
> > Written in 1912.
>
> > -JTD
>
> Messy divorces are proof that emotions trumps economic interest every
> time.
>
> Dan

Maybe not *every* time, but it only has to happen some of the time for
Bad Things to result.

It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
economics texts.

-JTD

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
> >> :
>
> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> >> > told they should.
>
> >> What bout fuedin'?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>
> You reckin?
>
> bertie

A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 12:52 pm, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 12:29 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > > > Ken
>
> > > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > > > option, I suppose?
>
> > > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > > > business interests.
>
> > > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> > > digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> > > one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> > > respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> > > explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> > > trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> > > much economic damage to everyone involved.
>
> > > Written in 1912.
>
> > > -JTD
>
> > Messy divorces are proof that emotions trumps economic interest every
> > time.
>
> > Dan
>
> Maybe not *every* time, but it only has to happen some of the time for
> Bad Things to result.
>
> It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
> country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
> contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
> Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
> strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
> Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
> was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
> with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
> present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
> interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
> anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
> point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
> could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
> Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
> There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
> economics texts.
>
> -JTD

Wait a second ...

This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.

WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.

Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
as validation of their claims.

Of course the US had Jim Crow and segregation at the time -- but
evidence of inconsistency in application of a fundamental principal --
that All men are endowed by their creator, etc. -- does not invalidate
the principal.

Of course the Allies included the Stalin's dictatorship. But the enemy
of my enemy is my friend. Remember -- the USSR joined the allies
*after* Hitler invaded Russia in 1940.

Read Paul Fussel and a host of others who realized when they opened
the concentration camps (in Europe and in Asia) that theirs was a
crusade -- not a mere squabble over territory.

And anyone who says different is itchin for a fight.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > > > Ken
>
> > > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > > > option, I suppose?
>
> > > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > > > business interests.
>
> > > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> > > digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> > > one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> > > respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> > > explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> > > trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> > > much economic damage to everyone involved.
> > > Written in 1912.
> > > -JTD
>
> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>
> ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.
>
> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> > told they should.
>
> Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
> Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
> that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
> past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
> from devolving into war?
> JTD

I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.
Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.

I think Old Bush's "New World Order" could have
re-vamped the UN, to unify the planet better., it's
time has come.
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> I think Old Bush's "New World Order" could have
> re-vamped the UN, to unify the planet better., it's
> time has come.
> Ken

Unify the planet under...?

And what of those who would rather not be unified...?

No Thanks.

Dan

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 3:41 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty >

> > It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
> > country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
> > contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
> > Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
> > strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
> > Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
> > was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
> > with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
> > present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
> > interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
> > anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
> > point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
> > could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
> > Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
> > There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
> > economics texts.
>
> > -JTD
>
> Wait a second ...
>
> This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.
>
> WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.
>
> Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
> that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
> of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
> as validation of their claims.
>

<snip>

I think we may be in violent agreement here. :-)

The point I was trying to make was that wars happen for many, many
reasons, and that national leaders have to consider many, many
different dimensions when they're making decisions. Reducing the
entire thing to economics, as the poster I was initially replying to
did, is a dangerous oversimplification. All I was doing with that
part of my post is illustrating my point by looking at *one* of the
other dimensions that led to war between the U.S. and the Japanese
Empire in the Pacific. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't
any others, or that politics alone could explain the war any more than
economics could, or that the Pacific War was a "clash of Empire".
(For one thing, it's a bit hard to have a "clash of Empire" when one
party is in the process of giving up its empire in the area, as the
U.S. was doing at the time WWII kicked off.) There are a lot of other
dimensions that I could have picked, and many more if I wanted to look
at the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. I was just making a point
about the causes of war in general, and the dangers of looking at one
particular factor as the end all and be all.

As a side note, I would agree with you that anyone who says the U.S.
and Japan were ideologically equivalent at the time simply hasn't done
the reading.

-JTD

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > > > > option, I suppose?
>
> > > > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > > > > business interests.
>
> > > > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> > > > digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> > > > one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> > > > respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> > > > explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> > > > trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> > > > much economic damage to everyone involved.
> > > > Written in 1912.
> > > > -JTD
>
> > > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> > > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> > > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>
> > ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.
>
> > > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> > > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> > > told they should.
>
> > Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
> > Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
> > that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
> > past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
> > from devolving into war?
> > JTD
>
> I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.
> Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
> sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
> weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
> one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
> ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.
>


Okay, hang on.

In your original post, you implied that wars weren't going to happen
any more, because they would be a "business mistake", that the world
had gotten too interdependent for a wider war. Others (including
myself) pointed out that for most of human history, war has been a bad
move, economically, and that in fact your thesis had been put forward
early in the 20th Century just before the most devastating wars the
human race has ever fought- and that wars keep happening anyway,
besides being really bad for business in general. In the post you
replied to, I pointed those things out, and asked what you thought had
changed in the years since that meant that this time, business
concerns would trump out, and wars wouldn't happen.

In response, you're invoking 5000 years of history, and calling us to
analyze the wars that humans have fought.

That's a non sequieter, but let's look at it for a second. The last
time anyone could make a case that "war pays for war" between
civilized states with a straight face was in the early 18th Century,
when conscript armies under folks like Blenheim were merrily marching
back and forth blowing the Hell out of civilized Europe. They spent
most of their time "levying contributions", which is a nice way of
saying "we marched into this state and forcibly stripped it of pretty
much anything of value to feed and pay the troops". Since the armies
didn't require a terrible lot of manufactured goods that couldn't be
captured and since international trade wasn't a big deal at the time,
this meant that an army in the field could more or less sustain itself
indefinitely with minimal expenditure from home. Any territory it
captured was more or less gravy for the homeland. As you can imagine,
this led to some awfully long wars.

*After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
could get out of it.

[All of this applies, of course, to wars between cultures with roughly
equal technology. I haven't looked at the figures in detail, but it's
entirely possible that some of the colonial wars that pitted breech-
loading rifles against spears ended up being economic wins in the long
run. Although conquest was generally one thing, pacification
another.]

The thing is, though, that wars still happen between industrialized
countries, and have for a long time. Even though they're economic
losers, they still happen. Because they can bring political benefits,
like more territory for the Big Man to rule or showing that your
country is not to be trifled with. Because they can fulfill
somebody's idea of national destiny. Because people do stupid things,
don't consider the consequences that their actions might have years
down the road, and get painted into corners. And any of those things
could still happen between the U.S. and China.

I devoutly hope they don't, because the one thing I do think you're
right about is that such a war would very likely be ruinous for both
sides and because I think wars in general are to be avoided, even if
they're sometimes necessary. But saying that it can't happen is
wrong, and dangerous because if we assume it can't happen we may not
be vigilant enough to keep it from happening.

So, with the above in mind: why, specifically, do you think that the
U.S. and China are so economically interdependent as to render war
between them impossible?

-JTD

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 25, 1:11 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think Old Bush's "New World Order" could have
> > re-vamped the UN, to unify the planet better., it's
> > time has come.
> > Ken
>
> Unify the planet under...?
> And what of those who would rather not be unified...?
> No Thanks.
> Dan

Straightfoward question to Dan.
Do you want your kids to shoot the other kids
before discussing an issue?

If you say "shoot 1st, ask questions later",
is that a good way to resolve problems?
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 4:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:11 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > I think Old Bush's "New World Order" could have
> > > re-vamped the UN, to unify the planet better., it's
> > > time has come.
> > > Ken
>
> > Unify the planet under...?
> > And what of those who would rather not be unified...?
> > No Thanks.
> > Dan
>
> Straightfoward question to Dan.
> Do you want your kids to shoot the other kids
> before discussing an issue?
>
> If you say "shoot 1st, ask questions later",
> is that a good way to resolve problems?
> Ken

My kids all knew how to shoot by the time they were 5.

What's your question?

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 4:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 3:41 pm, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> > > It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
> > > country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
> > > contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
> > > Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
> > > strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
> > > Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
> > > was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
> > > with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
> > > present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
> > > interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
> > > anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
> > > point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
> > > could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
> > > Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
> > > There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
> > > economics texts.
>
> > > -JTD
>
> > Wait a second ...
>
> > This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.
>
> > WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.
>
> > Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
> > that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
> > of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
> > as validation of their claims.
>
> <snip>
>
> I think we may be in violent agreement here. :-)
>
> The point I was trying to make was that wars happen for many, many
> reasons, and that national leaders have to consider many, many
> different dimensions when they're making decisions. Reducing the
> entire thing to economics, as the poster I was initially replying to
> did, is a dangerous oversimplification. All I was doing with that
> part of my post is illustrating my point by looking at *one* of the
> other dimensions that led to war between the U.S. and the Japanese
> Empire in the Pacific. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't
> any others, or that politics alone could explain the war any more than
> economics could, or that the Pacific War was a "clash of Empire".
> (For one thing, it's a bit hard to have a "clash of Empire" when one
> party is in the process of giving up its empire in the area, as the
> U.S. was doing at the time WWII kicked off.) There are a lot of other
> dimensions that I could have picked, and many more if I wanted to look
> at the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. I was just making a point
> about the causes of war in general, and the dangers of looking at one
> particular factor as the end all and be all.
>
> As a side note, I would agree with you that anyone who says the U.S.
> and Japan were ideologically equivalent at the time simply hasn't done
> the reading.
>
> -JTD

OK, thanks for the clarification.

My WW2 reading was buttressed by my Father's experience (DEs and Subs
in the Pacific).

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 4:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
>
> *After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
> an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
> manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
> clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
> have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
> contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
> takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
> would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
> almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
> could get out of it.

>
> -JTD

Not really.

The Russians did a pretty good job of pillaging and looting on their
merry way back west.

The Hutu's and Tutsi's did their thing without an extensive logistical
tail.

The Eastern Bloc arms were all designed to feed NATO rounds, so on
their way west they could capture NATO stockpiles and put them to use.

I'm always wary of simplified explanations for/against War. As a
professional soldier (once) and a mildly interested historian the more
I learn, the more I am in awe of war's way of encompassing all the
worst and best of humanity.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
>> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
>> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
>> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
>> >> > told they should.
>>
>> >> What bout fuedin'?
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>>
>> You reckin?
>>
>> bertie
>
> A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>

Pennsylucky? OK...

Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " >
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
>> > > > > Ken
>>
>> > > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps
>> > > > the war
>> > > > option, I suppose?
>>
>> > > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years
>> > > > devoid of business interests.
>>
>> > > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to
>> > > go digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until
>> > > I find one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written
>> > > by a well- respected economist, that was very popular in its
>> > > time. It carefully explained how, due to the interconnected
>> > > nature of international trade, widespread war was now impossible
>> > > because it would call too much economic damage to everyone
>> > > involved. Written in 1912.
>> > > -JTD
>>
>> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
>> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
>> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>>
>> ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.
>>
>> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
>> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
>> > told they should.
>>
>> Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
>> Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
>> that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
>> past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
>> from devolving into war?
>> JTD
>
> I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.


Got stuck in your outhouse again, eh?


Bertie

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 5:05 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 4:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > *After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
> > an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
> > manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
> > clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
> > have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
> > contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
> > takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
> > would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
> > almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
> > could get out of it.
>
> > -JTD
>
> Not really.
>
> The Russians did a pretty good job of pillaging and looting on their
> merry way back west.

Hmm, that's a counterpoint I hadn't thought about. Considering how
worked over the USSR was during the war, though, I'd doubt they really
came out ahead from a profit/loss point of view. Of course, that part
of the war wasn't ever about economics from their point of view- it
was about political survival, and making sure that they could never be
threatened from that quarter again. (IMHO)

> The Hutu's and Tutsi's did their thing without an extensive logistical
> tail.

Point. One could argue that they're not really functioning at a level
much above the 18th Century armies, but that's not really true
either. My thesis looks like it might have to go back to the drawing
board.

> The Eastern Bloc arms were all designed to feed NATO rounds, so on
> their way west they could capture NATO stockpiles and put them to use.

True, but could they really have sustained *all* of their operations
from NATO stockpiles? Even if they could supply all of their ammo
needs, would they have been able to capture enough food? POL?
Clothing? Spare parts?

You can certainly reduce your logistics headaches by looting, but I'd
argue that expecting an army to sustain itself without requiring any
real money spent at home by doing so in the modern age probably isn't
going to work. On the other hand, I haven't served and I'm strictly
an amateur historian, so I could be wrong.

> I'm always wary of simplified explanations for/against War. As a
> professional soldier (once) and a mildly interested historian the more
> I learn, the more I am in awe of war's way of encompassing all the
> worst and best of humanity.

That's certainly true, and I hope I haven't come across as trying to
simplistically explain war. My argument was that it's probably been a
long time since somebody actually made a buck, so to speak, by going
to war, and so (contra the OP) you have to look at dimensions other
than the economic to see why wars happen. I may have to rethink that
a bit in light of the examples you posted above, particularly with
respect to warfare in relatively unindustrialized countries.

Thanks for your service.

-JTD

> Dan

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 5:01 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 4:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 3:41 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> > > > It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
> > > > country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
> > > > contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
> > > > Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
> > > > strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
> > > > Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
> > > > was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
> > > > with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
> > > > present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
> > > > interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
> > > > anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
> > > > point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
> > > > could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
> > > > Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
> > > > There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
> > > > economics texts.
>
> > > > -JTD
>
> > > Wait a second ...
>
> > > This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.
>
> > > WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.
>
> > > Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
> > > that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
> > > of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
> > > as validation of their claims.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > I think we may be in violent agreement here. :-)
>
> > The point I was trying to make was that wars happen for many, many
> > reasons, and that national leaders have to consider many, many
> > different dimensions when they're making decisions. Reducing the
> > entire thing to economics, as the poster I was initially replying to
> > did, is a dangerous oversimplification. All I was doing with that
> > part of my post is illustrating my point by looking at *one* of the
> > other dimensions that led to war between the U.S. and the Japanese
> > Empire in the Pacific. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't
> > any others, or that politics alone could explain the war any more than
> > economics could, or that the Pacific War was a "clash of Empire".
> > (For one thing, it's a bit hard to have a "clash of Empire" when one
> > party is in the process of giving up its empire in the area, as the
> > U.S. was doing at the time WWII kicked off.) There are a lot of other
> > dimensions that I could have picked, and many more if I wanted to look
> > at the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. I was just making a point
> > about the causes of war in general, and the dangers of looking at one
> > particular factor as the end all and be all.
>
> > As a side note, I would agree with you that anyone who says the U.S.
> > and Japan were ideologically equivalent at the time simply hasn't done
> > the reading.
>
> > -JTD
>
> OK, thanks for the clarification.
>
> My WW2 reading was buttressed by my Father's experience (DEs and Subs
> in the Pacific).

Hats off to him, then. You don't hear nearly enough about what a
crucial difference the "Silent Service" made during the war years.
Have you read Blair's _Silent Victory_? It's probably the best single
history of U.S. sub operations in the Pacific during WWII, and if you
haven't it's well worth the read. Just got reprinted a few years
back, so you can even get a copy without promising someone your
firstborn son.

-JTD

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> " > wrote
> >> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
>
> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> >> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> >> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> >> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> >> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> >> >> > told they should.
>
> >> >> What bout fuedin'?
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>
> >> You reckin?
>
> >> bertie
>
> > A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>
> Pennsylucky? OK...
>
> Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!
>
> Bertie

I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.

Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 5:19 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:

> > My WW2 reading was buttressed by my Father's experience (DEs and Subs
> > in the Pacific).
>
> Hats off to him, then. You don't hear nearly enough about what a
> crucial difference the "Silent Service" made during the war years.
> Have you read Blair's _Silent Victory_? It's probably the best single
> history of U.S. sub operations in the Pacific during WWII, and if you
> haven't it's well worth the read. Just got reprinted a few years
> back, so you can even get a copy without promising someone your
> firstborn son.
>
> -JTD

No, though I should.

I don't even know which ships he served on -- he had the names
tattooed on his forearms (before everybody had tattoos). He died
before the "greatest generation" started talking.

As one of them said, "Now they won't shut up!"

:-)

Though if you're familar with Band of brothers, you know about Dick
Winters.

he came and spoke to an OCS Class I taught -- talk about a humble guy.
One of the candidates asked him to recount his single-handed capture
of a German Battalion...

"Well, they were scared and tired too..."

Different age, then.


Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 5:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:

> Point. One could argue that they're not really functioning at a level
> much above the 18th Century armies, but that's not really true
> either. My thesis looks like it might have to go back to the drawing
> board.
>

Even the Civil War revolved around the capture of supplies. Jeb Stuart
rode north to find shoes.

Lee hoped to drive the North to sue for peace by attacking the granary
-- the fecund fields of southeastern Pennsylvania.


>
> True, but could they really have sustained *all* of their operations
> from NATO stockpiles? Even if they could supply all of their ammo
> needs, would they have been able to capture enough food? POL?
> Clothing? Spare parts?
>

We (NATO) assumed the Warsaw Pact's entire strategy was based on
seizure of key supplies and production centers. So the answer would
have to be "yes."

>
My argument was that it's probably been a
> long time since somebody actually made a buck, so to speak, by going
> to war, and so (contra the OP) you have to look at dimensions other
> than the economic to see why wars happen. I may have to rethink that
> a bit in light of the examples you posted above, particularly with
> respect to warfare in relatively unindustrialized countries.

I don't think anyone can successfully argue that war pays for itself
in the short or even moderately long run (that goes for the "blood for
oil!" wackos).

But, as England discovered in 1763, winning a war can present
unimaginable opportunities that governments are peculiarly adroit at
squandering.

Dan

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 5:27 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 5:19 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
> > > My WW2 reading was buttressed by my Father's experience (DEs and Subs
> > > in the Pacific).
>
> > Hats off to him, then. You don't hear nearly enough about what a
> > crucial difference the "Silent Service" made during the war years.
> > Have you read Blair's _Silent Victory_? It's probably the best single
> > history of U.S. sub operations in the Pacific during WWII, and if you
> > haven't it's well worth the read. Just got reprinted a few years
> > back, so you can even get a copy without promising someone your
> > firstborn son.
>
> > -JTD
>
> No, though I should.
>
> I don't even know which ships he served on -- he had the names
> tattooed on his forearms (before everybody had tattoos). He died
> before the "greatest generation" started talking.

It's long, but well worth the time spent. Some newer books do better
at specific aspects of the sub war, but thirty years on Blair's is
still the best single overview. One of the *good* aspects about the
resurgence of interest in the "Greatest Generation" is that they
finally reprinted the blessed thing- when my Dad and I started looking
at sub history you could spend months on the used book trade, and pay
$60 for the total set. Now it's $30 on Amazon...

> Though if you're familar with Band of brothers, you know about Dick
> Winters.
>
> he came and spoke to an OCS Class I taught -- talk about a humble guy.
> One of the candidates asked him to recount his single-handed capture
> of a German Battalion...
>
> "Well, they were scared and tired too..."
>
> Different age, then.

Have to look that story up...

-JTD

> Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:eb4e7880-252d-4956-
:

> On Feb 25, 1:11 pm, " > wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I think Old Bush's "New World Order" could have
>> > re-vamped the UN, to unify the planet better., it's
>> > time has come.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Unify the planet under...?
>> And what of those who would rather not be unified...?
>> No Thanks.
>> Dan
>
> Straightfoward question to Dan.
> Do you want your kids to shoot the other kids
> before discussing an issue?


Deeplymoved by the latest Rambo episode, eh?


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:e2c255ce-25e4-4a87-9a6a-

>> m:
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> " > wrote
>> >> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
>>
>> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
>> >> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
>> >> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>> >> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
>> >> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
>> >> >> > told they should.
>>
>> >> >> What bout fuedin'?
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>>
>> >> You reckin?
>>
>> >> bertie
>>
>> > A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>>
>> Pennsylucky? OK...
>>
>> Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.
>
> Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!
>

Hmm, Can you smell the paper mill from where you live?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 9:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> " > wrote
> >> innews:e2c255ce-25e4-4a87-9a6a-
>
>
>
>
>
> >> m:
>
> >> > On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> " > wrote
> >> >> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
>
> >> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>
> >> >> om:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> >> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> >> >> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> >> >> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> >> >> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> >> >> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> >> >> >> > told they should.
>
> >> >> >> What bout fuedin'?
>
> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>
> >> >> You reckin?
>
> >> >> bertie
>
> >> > A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>
> >> Pennsylucky? OK...
>
> >> Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.
>
> > Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!
>
> Hmm, Can you smell the paper mill from where you live?
>
> Bertie

yeah.

I love the smell of a mill in the morning.

Smells... Like.....





Victory.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 9:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:24f21d94-8e49-4e1b-9a96-b7dd8495c153
@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> " > wrote
>> >> innews:e2c255ce-25e4-4a87-9a6a-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> m:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> " > wrote
>> >> >> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
>>
>> >> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>>
>> >> >> om:
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
>> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
>> >> >> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
>> >> >> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>> >> >> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
>> >> >> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
>> >> >> >> > told they should.
>>
>> >> >> >> What bout fuedin'?
>>
>> >> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>>
>> >> >> You reckin?
>>
>> >> >> bertie
>>
>> >> > A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>>
>> >> Pennsylucky? OK...
>>
>> >> Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.
>>
>> > Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!
>>
>> Hmm, Can you smell the paper mill from where you live?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> yeah.
>
> I love the smell of a mill in the morning.
>
> Smells... Like.....
>
>
>
>
>
> Victory.
>

So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a 310
full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 10:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> " > wrote
> >> innews:24f21d94-8e49-4e1b-9a96-b7dd8495c153
>
> @m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> " > wrote
> >> >> innews:e2c255ce-25e4-4a87-9a6a-
>
> >>
>
> >> >> m:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> " > wrote
> >> >> >> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
>
> >> >> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>
> >> >> >> om:
>
> >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> >> >> >> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> >> >> >> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> >> >> >> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> >> >> >> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> >> >> >> >> > told they should.
>
> >> >> >> >> What bout fuedin'?
>
> >> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> >> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>
> >> >> >> You reckin?
>
> >> >> >> bertie
>
> >> >> > A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>
> >> >> Pennsylucky? OK...
>
> >> >> Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.
>
> >> > Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!
>
> >> Hmm, Can you smell the paper mill from where you live?
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > yeah.
>
> > I love the smell of a mill in the morning.
>
> > Smells... Like.....
>
> > Victory.
>
> So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a 310
> full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!
>
> Bertie

Actually, no...

I'm south of Pittsburgh along the Mon, where the coal fires burn to
keep the lights on. Not from here but it pays good.

What's an altoid?

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi Jeff, studied your post.

On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > > > > > option, I suppose?
>
> > > > > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > > > > > business interests.
>
> > > > > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> > > > > digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> > > > > one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> > > > > respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> > > > > explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> > > > > trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> > > > > much economic damage to everyone involved.
> > > > > Written in 1912.
> > > > > -JTD
>
> > > > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> > > > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> > > > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>
> > > ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.
>
> > > > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> > > > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> > > > told they should.
>
> > > Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
> > > Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
> > > that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
> > > past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
> > > from devolving into war?
> > > JTD
>
> > I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.
> > Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
> > sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
> > weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
> > one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
> > ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.
>
> Okay, hang on.
>
> In your original post, you implied that wars weren't going to happen
> any more, because they would be a "business mistake", that the world
> had gotten too interdependent for a wider war. Others (including
> myself) pointed out that for most of human history, war has been a bad
> move, economically, and that in fact your thesis had been put forward
> early in the 20th Century just before the most devastating wars the
> human race has ever fought-

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

> and that wars keep happening anyway,
> besides being really bad for business in general. In the post you
> replied to, I pointed those things out, and asked what you thought had
> changed in the years since that meant that this time, business
> concerns would trump out, and wars wouldn't happen.
>
> In response, you're invoking 5000 years of history, and calling us to
> analyze the wars that humans have fought.

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War => Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.
The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).

> That's a non sequieter, but let's look at it for a second. The last
> time anyone could make a case that "war pays for war" between
> civilized states with a straight face was in the early 18th Century,
> when conscript armies under folks like Blenheim were merrily marching
> back and forth blowing the Hell out of civilized Europe. They spent
> most of their time "levying contributions", which is a nice way of
> saying "we marched into this state and forcibly stripped it of pretty
> much anything of value to feed and pay the troops". Since the armies
> didn't require a terrible lot of manufactured goods that couldn't be
> captured and since international trade wasn't a big deal at the time,
> this meant that an army in the field could more or less sustain itself
> indefinitely with minimal expenditure from home. Any territory it
> captured was more or less gravy for the homeland. As you can imagine,
> this led to some awfully long wars.

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

> *After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
> an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
> manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
> clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
> have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
> contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
> takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
> would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
> almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
> could get out of it.

> [All of this applies, of course, to wars between cultures with roughly
> equal technology. I haven't looked at the figures in detail, but it's
> entirely possible that some of the colonial wars that pitted breech-
> loading rifles against spears ended up being economic wins in the long
> run. Although conquest was generally one thing, pacification
> another.]

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

> The thing is, though, that wars still happen between industrialized
> countries, and have for a long time. Even though they're economic
> losers, they still happen. Because they can bring political benefits,
> like more territory for the Big Man to rule or showing that your
> country is not to be trifled with. Because they can fulfill
> somebody's idea of national destiny. Because people do stupid things,
> don't consider the consequences that their actions might have years
> down the road, and get painted into corners. And any of those things
> could still happen between the U.S. and China.
>
> I devoutly hope they don't, because the one thing I do think you're
> right about is that such a war would very likely be ruinous for both
> sides and because I think wars in general are to be avoided, even if
> they're sometimes necessary. But saying that it can't happen is
> wrong, and dangerous because if we assume it can't happen we may not
> be vigilant enough to keep it from happening.
>
> So, with the above in mind: why, specifically, do you think that the
> U.S. and China are so economically interdependent as to render war
> between them impossible?

I claimed war would be a bad business decision,
only nothing is impossible,

> -JTD

Regards
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 25, 10:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:7ffbdfc9-16bf-4444-bcaf-

>> om:
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 9:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> " > wrote
>> >> innews:24f21d94-8e49-4e1b-9a96-b7dd8495c153
>>
>> @m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.c
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> " > wrote
>> >> >> innews:e2c255ce-25e4-4a87-9a6a-
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> m:
>>
>> >> >> > On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >> " > wrote
>> >> >> >> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
>>
>> >> >> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>>
>> >> >> >> om:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
>> >> >> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
>> >> >> >> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
>> >> >> >> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>> >> >> >> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
>> >> >> >> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
>> >> >> >> >> > told they should.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> What bout fuedin'?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> >> >> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>>
>> >> >> >> You reckin?
>>
>> >> >> >> bertie
>>
>> >> >> > A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>>
>> >> >> Pennsylucky? OK...
>>
>> >> >> Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.
>>
>> >> > Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!
>>
>> >> Hmm, Can you smell the paper mill from where you live?
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > yeah.
>>
>> > I love the smell of a mill in the morning.
>>
>> > Smells... Like.....
>>
>> > Victory.
>>
>> So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a
>> 310 full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Actually, no...
>
> I'm south of Pittsburgh along the Mon, where the coal fires burn to
> keep the lights on. Not from here but it pays good.
>
> What's an altoid?
>

OK, I know your area now. An Altoid is from Altoona, of course!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> Hi Jeff, studied your post.
>
> On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty
>> > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " >
>> > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker"
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
>> > > > > > > Ken
>>
>> > > > > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that
>> > > > > > trumps the war
>> > > > > > option, I suppose?
>>
>> > > > > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 --
>> > > > > > years devoid of business interests.
>>
>> > > > > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted
>> > > > > to go digging through the college textbooks I have in storage
>> > > > > until I find one reading that mentions a very compelling
>> > > > > book, written by a well- respected economist, that was very
>> > > > > popular in its time. It carefully explained how, due to the
>> > > > > interconnected nature of international trade, widespread war
>> > > > > was now impossible because it would call too much economic
>> > > > > damage to everyone involved. Written in 1912.
>> > > > > -JTD
>>
>> > > > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
>> > > > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
>> > > > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>>
>> > > ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do
>> > > tell.
>>
>> > > > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
>> > > > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
>> > > > told they should.
>>
>> > > Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
>> > > Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world
>> > > for that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed
>> > > in the past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a
>> > > situation from devolving into war?
>> > > JTD
>>
>> > I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.
>> > Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
>> > sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
>> > weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
>> > one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
>> > ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.
>>
>> Okay, hang on.
>>
>> In your original post, you implied that wars weren't going to happen
>> any more, because they would be a "business mistake", that the world
>> had gotten too interdependent for a wider war. Others (including
>> myself) pointed out that for most of human history, war has been a
>> bad move, economically, and that in fact your thesis had been put
>> forward early in the 20th Century just before the most devastating
>> wars the human race has ever fought-
>
> Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
> serious war is totally genocidal.
>
>> and that wars keep happening anyway,
>> besides being really bad for business in general. In the post you
>> replied to, I pointed those things out, and asked what you thought
>> had changed in the years since that meant that this time, business
>> concerns would trump out, and wars wouldn't happen.
>>
>> In response, you're invoking 5000 years of history, and calling us to
>> analyze the wars that humans have fought.
>
> From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
> present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
> is Right", and War => Strength, including economical
> but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
> unified by force.
> The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
> (according to our simulations).
>
>> That's a non sequieter, but let's look at it for a second. The last
>> time anyone could make a case that "war pays for war" between
>> civilized states with a straight face was in the early 18th Century,
>> when conscript armies under folks like Blenheim were merrily marching
>> back and forth blowing the Hell out of civilized Europe. They spent
>> most of their time "levying contributions", which is a nice way of
>> saying "we marched into this state and forcibly stripped it of pretty
>> much anything of value to feed and pay the troops". Since the armies
>> didn't require a terrible lot of manufactured goods that couldn't be
>> captured and since international trade wasn't a big deal at the time,
>> this meant that an army in the field could more or less sustain
>> itself indefinitely with minimal expenditure from home. Any
>> territory it captured was more or less gravy for the homeland. As
>> you can imagine, this led to some awfully long wars.
>
> I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
> America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
> based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
> everyone they were purchasing goods from were
> far more economically more powerful, because
> they had a GNP, Spain had very little.
>
>> *After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way.
>> Sustaining an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of
>> high-end manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food
>> and clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because
>> armies have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by
>> "levying contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All
>> of that takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that
>> since (I would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning
>> a war is almost always going to cost more money than any *economic*
>> benefit you could get out of it.
>
>> [All of this applies, of course, to wars between cultures with
>> roughly equal technology. I haven't looked at the figures in detail,
>> but it's entirely possible that some of the colonial wars that pitted
>> breech- loading rifles against spears ended up being economic wins in
>> the long run. Although conquest was generally one thing,
>> pacification another.]
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
> the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

Yes, you'd have the RCAF flying paper darts if it were up to you ,
though.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 11:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 25, 10:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> " > wrote
> >> innews:7ffbdfc9-16bf-4444-bcaf-
>
>
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Feb 25, 9:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> " > wrote
> >> >> innews:24f21d94-8e49-4e1b-9a96-b7dd8495c153
>
> >> @m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.c
>
> >> >> om:
>
> >> >> > On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> " > wrote
> >> >> >> innews:e2c255ce-25e4-4a87-9a6a-
>
> >> >>
>
> >> >> >> m:
>
> >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> " > wrote
> >> >> >> >> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
>
> >> >> >> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>
> >> >> >> >> om:
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> >> >> >> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
> >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> >> >> >> >> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> >> >> >> >> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> >> >> >> >> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> >> >> >> >> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> >> >> >> >> >> > told they should.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> What bout fuedin'?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> >> >> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>
> >> >> >> >> You reckin?
>
> >> >> >> >> bertie
>
> >> >> >> > A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>
> >> >> >> Pennsylucky? OK...
>
> >> >> >> Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!
>
> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> >> > I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.
>
> >> >> > Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!
>
> >> >> Hmm, Can you smell the paper mill from where you live?
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > yeah.
>
> >> > I love the smell of a mill in the morning.
>
> >> > Smells... Like.....
>
> >> > Victory.
>
> >> So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a
> >> 310 full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Actually, no...
>
> > I'm south of Pittsburgh along the Mon, where the coal fires burn to
> > keep the lights on. Not from here but it pays good.
>
> > What's an altoid?
>
> OK, I know your area now. An Altoid is from Altoona, of course!
>
> Bertie

Ah ha...

Those poor people....

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 26, 7:10*am, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 11:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > " > wrote :
>
> > > On Feb 25, 10:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> " > wrote
> > >> innews:7ffbdfc9-16bf-4444-bcaf-
>
> >
>
> > >> om:
>
> > >> > On Feb 25, 9:24 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> >> " > wrote
> > >> >> innews:24f21d94-8e49-4e1b-9a96-b7dd8495c153
>
> > >> @m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.c
>
> > >> >> om:
>
> > >> >> > On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> >> >> " > wrote
> > >> >> >> innews:e2c255ce-25e4-4a87-9a6a-
>
> > >> >>
>
> > >> >> >> m:
>
> > >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> " > wrote
> > >> >> >> >> innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
>
> > >> >> >> @u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
>
> > >> >> >> >> om:
>
> > >> >> >> >> > On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> > >> >> >> >> >> news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
> > >> >> >> >> >> :
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> > >> >> >> >> >> > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> > >> >> >> >> >> > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
> > >> >> >> >> >> > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> > >> >> >> >> >> > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> > >> >> >> >> >> > told they should.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> What bout fuedin'?
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> Bertie
>
> > >> >> >> >> > Now that's jes plain fun...
>
> > >> >> >> >> You reckin?
>
> > >> >> >> >> bertie
>
> > >> >> >> > A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!
>
> > >> >> >> Pennsylucky? OK...
>
> > >> >> >> Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!
>
> > >> >> >> Bertie
>
> > >> >> > I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.
>
> > >> >> > Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!
>
> > >> >> Hmm, Can you smell the paper mill from where you live?
>
> > >> >> Bertie
>
> > >> > yeah.
>
> > >> > I love the smell of a mill in the morning.
>
> > >> > Smells... * * *Like.....
>
> > >> > Victory.
>
> > >> So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a
> > >> 310 full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!
>
> > >> Bertie
>
> > > Actually, no...
>
> > > I'm south of Pittsburgh along the Mon, where the coal fires burn to
> > > keep the lights on. Not from here but it pays good.
>
> > > What's an altoid?
>
> > OK, I know your area now. An Altoid is from Altoona, of course!
>
> > Bertie
>
> Ah ha...
>
> Those poor people....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're not too far from me. Is that a rural area or a city? What's a
twentyish acre gentleman's farm over there going for? Sorry, sort of
OT.

Wil

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
> serious war is totally genocidal.

50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

> From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
> present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
> is Right", and War => Strength, including economical
> but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
> unified by force.
> The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
> (according to our simulations).
>

Hunh? Which? SimCity?

> I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
> America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
> based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
> everyone they were purchasing goods from were
> far more economically more powerful, because
> they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

So you read something --- that's always a good reason to posit some
unsupported theory on global economics, certainly.

> I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
> the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.
>
>
> Regards
> Ken

The United States "Attacked the Taliban" and overwhelmed the entire
pathetic country in a matter of weeks. This because the Taliban were
Muslim jihadists who harbored and supported those who attacked us on
September 11th, when 2,974 people died --- 246 on four airplanes.


Dan

[Steve Foley]

"The3rdRail" > wrote in message
...

> 1. QUIT
> 2. BE RICH
> 3. MOVE TO SOUTH DAKOTA
> 4. FLY ON BATTERIES

I choose #2.

[[email protected]]

> angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to
> speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech
> support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading

The job probably got shifted overseas because an "angry white man" was
trying to improve shareholder value for other "angry white" men.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 7:18 am, William Hung > wrote:
>
> You're not too far from me. Is that a rural area or a city? What's a
> twentyish acre gentleman's farm over there going for? Sorry, sort of
> OT.
>
> Wil

This area (southeast of Pittsburgh) was once the coal and coke (cooked
down coal) provider for the Steel Mills.

Coke is no longer produced here, but the remnants of those days are
everywhere, from old rail yards to rows of coke ovens.

The area remains depressed (relatively), so there has been an effort
to woo technology firms to help bolster the local economy.

Most open land is owned and held until natural Gas is found. Then the
money pours in while the pittance taxes go out.

Good luck finding 20 acres. It's either 200+ or 1/4 acre -- very few
McMansions around here.

Dan

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 26, 8:07*am, " > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 7:18 am, William Hung > wrote:
>
>
>
> > You're not too far from me. *Is that a rural area or a city? *What's a
> > twentyish acre gentleman's farm over there going for? *Sorry, sort of
> > OT.
>
> > Wil
>
> This area (southeast of Pittsburgh) was once the coal and coke (cooked
> down coal) provider for the Steel Mills.
>
> Coke is no longer produced here, but the remnants of those days are
> everywhere, from old rail yards to rows of coke ovens.
>
> The area remains depressed (relatively), so there has been an effort
> to woo technology firms to help bolster the local economy.
>
> Most open land is owned and held until natural Gas is found. Then the
> money pours in while the pittance taxes go out.
>
> Good luck finding 20 acres. It's either 200+ or 1/4 acre -- very few
> McMansions around here.
>
> Dan

Too bad, I was thinking of a cabin and small strip for a STOL.

Wil

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 8:13 am, William Hung > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:07 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 7:18 am, William Hung > wrote:
>
> > > You're not too far from me. Is that a rural area or a city? What's a
> > > twentyish acre gentleman's farm over there going for? Sorry, sort of
> > > OT.
>
> > > Wil
>
> > This area (southeast of Pittsburgh) was once the coal and coke (cooked
> > down coal) provider for the Steel Mills.
>
> > Coke is no longer produced here, but the remnants of those days are
> > everywhere, from old rail yards to rows of coke ovens.
>
> > The area remains depressed (relatively), so there has been an effort
> > to woo technology firms to help bolster the local economy.
>
> > Most open land is owned and held until natural Gas is found. Then the
> > money pours in while the pittance taxes go out.
>
> > Good luck finding 20 acres. It's either 200+ or 1/4 acre -- very few
> > McMansions around here.
>
> > Dan
>
> Too bad, I was thinking of a cabin and small strip for a STOL.
>
> Wil

As long as you're ok landing up or down 25 degree slopes, you're good
to go!

Nuttin but hills here.

The local airport (KVVS) is right at the foot of a ridge that does fun
things to any winds from 030- 170.

Can you say "Hold on Martha -- we're gonna die!!!"


Dan

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 26, 8:17*am, " > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:13 am, William Hung > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:07 am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 7:18 am, William Hung > wrote:
>
> > > > You're not too far from me. *Is that a rural area or a city? *What's a
> > > > twentyish acre gentleman's farm over there going for? *Sorry, sort of
> > > > OT.
>
> > > > Wil
>
> > > This area (southeast of Pittsburgh) was once the coal and coke (cooked
> > > down coal) provider for the Steel Mills.
>
> > > Coke is no longer produced here, but the remnants of those days are
> > > everywhere, from old rail yards to rows of coke ovens.
>
> > > The area remains depressed (relatively), so there has been an effort
> > > to woo technology firms to help bolster the local economy.
>
> > > Most open land is owned and held until natural Gas is found. Then the
> > > money pours in while the pittance taxes go out.
>
> > > Good luck finding 20 acres. It's either 200+ or 1/4 acre -- very few
> > > McMansions around here.
>
> > > Dan
>
> > Too bad, I was thinking of a cabin and small strip for a STOL.
>
> > Wil
>
> As long as you're ok landing up or down 25 degree slopes, you're good
> to go!
>
> Nuttin but hills here.
>
> The local airport (KVVS) is right at the foot of a ridge that does fun
> things to any winds from 030- 170.
>
> Can you say "Hold on Martha -- we're gonna die!!!"
>
> Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh wel, It was wishful thinking in any case. Not quite there yet
financially.

Wil

[[email protected]]

On Feb 25, 10:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a 310
> full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!
>
> Bertie

How do you get one of those canceled check gigs? Seems like that would
be the best way to learn the ME business, but quick!

Dna

[Allen[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On Feb 25, 10:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a 310
>> full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> How do you get one of those canceled check gigs? Seems like that would
> be the best way to learn the ME business, but quick!
>
> Dna

They are all pretty much out of business now with the coming of the
electronic transaction era. Whole fleets of aircraft have been sold because
of it.

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 10:23 am, "Allen" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Feb 25, 10:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a 310
> >> full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > How do you get one of those canceled check gigs? Seems like that would
> > be the best way to learn the ME business, but quick!
>
> > Dna
>
> They are all pretty much out of business now with the coming of the
> electronic transaction era. Whole fleets of aircraft have been sold because
> of it.
>
> --
>
> *H. Allen Smith*
> WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

That makes sense -- who writes checks anymore?


Dan

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Feb 26, 10:23 am, "Allen" > wrote:

>> They are all pretty much out of business now with the coming of the
>> electronic transaction era. Whole fleets of aircraft have been sold because
>> of it.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *H. Allen Smith*
>> WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.
>
> That makes sense -- who writes checks anymore?
>

Even if checks are written they are scanned and sent electronically.
Hence the reason it is almost impossible to get an original check back
from your bank.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 26, 4:49 am, " > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
> > serious war is totally genocidal.
>
> 50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
WW1 did, something few know about.
Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.

> > From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
> > present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
> > is Right", and War => Strength, including economical
> > but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
> > unified by force.
> > The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
> > (according to our simulations).
>
> Hunh? Which? SimCity?

No, the sims were automated.

> > I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
> > America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
> > based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
> > everyone they were purchasing goods from were
> > far more economically more powerful, because
> > they had a GNP, Spain had very little.
>
> So you read something --- that's always a good reason to posit some
> unsupported theory on global economics, certainly.

I can now tell I likely more "well read" than you,
and with far better comprehesion, your wasting.

> > I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
> > the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.
>
> > Regards
> > Ken
>
> The United States "Attacked the Taliban" and overwhelmed the entire
> pathetic country in a matter of weeks. This because the Taliban were
> Muslim jihadists who harbored and supported those who attacked us on
> September 11th, when 2,974 people died --- 246 on four airplanes.

LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
Ever heard of NATO?

> Dan

Regrads
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
> > > serious war is totally genocidal.
>
> > 50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?
>
> It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
> perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
> WW1 did, something few know about.
> Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.

So according to you, a war is "sissy" if the 'entire race" wasn't
wiped out.


> > Hunh? Which? SimCity?
>
> No, the sims were automated.
>

Well, there you go. Who can gainsay such compelling evidence! They
were AUTOMATED!

>
> I can now tell I likely more "well read" than you,
> and with far better comprehesion, your wasting.
>

Clearly, you're far more quote well read unquote than me.

It's undeniable. My comprehension (that's how it's spelled, FWIW) of
kook history and inane logic is clearly sub par, in comparison to your
demonstrated superiority.


> LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
> Ever heard of NATO?
>
> > Dan
>
> Regrads
> Ken

Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
Germany.

You?

OK, time to read The National Enquirer to catch up with Ken.


Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
> Ever heard of NATO?
>
> Regrads
> Ken

Maybe.

Some folks jes need killin.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 26, 9:59 am, " > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
> > > > serious war is totally genocidal.
>
> > > 50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?
>
> > It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
> > perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
> > WW1 did, something few know about.
> > Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.
>
> So according to you, a war is "sissy" if the 'entire race" wasn't
> wiped out.

POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
enslaved.

> > > Hunh? Which? SimCity?
>
> > No, the sims were automated.
>
> Well, there you go. Who can gainsay such compelling evidence! They
> were AUTOMATED!

The "automation" removes contamination.
It's rather like growing bacteria on a Petri dish.
One merely introduces various bacteria on to
the dish with variables in it's reproduction habits,
and statistically determines the winner.
It's bit more complex, but you get the picture.

> > I can now tell I likely more "well read" than you,
> > and with far better comprehesion, your wasting.
>
> Clearly, you're far more quote well read unquote than me.
> It's undeniable. My comprehension (that's how it's spelled, FWIW) of
> kook history and inane logic is clearly sub par, in comparison to your
> demonstrated superiority.

Evidentally, you tend to name calling, that is an
inferior trait, in normal discourse.

> > LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
> > Ever heard of NATO?
>
> > > Dan
>
> > Regrads
> > Ken
>
> Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
> Germany.

Well then <duh> you should know the Afghan mission is
a NATO operation and entire force of NATO cannot get Bin
Lauden, so why do think the Taliban could, you're wasting?
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 2:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
> captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
> back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
> enslaved.

What does this have to do with your inane argument?

[Great. I'm going to keep this going. The more you reply the more you
remove any doubt....]


> The "automation" removes contamination.
> It's rather like growing bacteria on a Petri dish.
> One merely introduces various bacteria on to
> the dish with variables in it's reproduction habits,
> and statistically determines the winner.
> It's bit more complex, but you get the picture.

Thanks so much for deigning to descend to my level, just this once.

As we pilots know, computer models never lie.


> > Clearly, you're far more quote well read unquote than me.
> > It's undeniable. My comprehension (that's how it's spelled, FWIW) of
> > kook history and inane logic is clearly sub par, in comparison to your
> > demonstrated superiority.
>
> Evidentally, you tend to name calling, that is an
> inferior trait, in normal discourse.

No, if I were name calling I would have said you were a "blathering
idiot" or "moron" or "oxygen thief."

I'm sure you've heard others reply with far, far better names.

> > Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
> > Germany.
>
> Well then <duh> you should know the Afghan mission is
> a NATO operation and entire force of NATO cannot get Bin
> Lauden, so why do think the Taliban could, you're wasting?

The Taliban had no incentive to "get Bin Laden." They harbored and
supported him and his malevolent cronies.

Maybe you were asleep, but NATO took over *after* the US dismantled
the Taliban.

Now, have you taken this afternoon's dose or are you waiting for the
shakes to get worse?


Dan

"I do my killin before breakfast..."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:f8ecbc0f-ec37-4257-
:

> On Feb 26, 4:49 am, " > wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
>> > serious war is totally genocidal.
>>
>> 50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?
>
> It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
> perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
> WW1 did, something few know about.
> Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.


Obviously the idiot tribe managed to dodge the bullet.


bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:f14ed691-6e53-
:

> On Feb 26, 9:59 am, " > wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
>> > > > serious war is totally genocidal.
>>
>> > > 50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?
>>
>> > It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
>> > perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
>> > WW1 did, something few know about.
>> > Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.
>>
>> So according to you, a war is "sissy" if the 'entire race" wasn't
>> wiped out.
>
> POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
> captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
> back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
> enslaved.



Ken, you have to stop eating the old jujubes you find stuck on the
carpet.

>
>> > > Hunh? Which? SimCity?
>>
>> > No, the sims were automated.
>>
>> Well, there you go. Who can gainsay such compelling evidence! They
>> were AUTOMATED!
>
> The "automation" removes contamination.
> It's rather like growing bacteria on a Petri dish.
> One merely introduces various bacteria on to
> the dish with variables in it's reproduction habits,
> and statistically determines the winner.
> It's bit more complex, but you get the picture.


Oh yeah. I's like you're Michaelangelo with words.
>
>> > I can now tell I likely more "well read" than you,
>> > and with far better comprehesion, your wasting.
>>
>> Clearly, you're far more quote well read unquote than me.
>> It's undeniable. My comprehension (that's how it's spelled, FWIW) of
>> kook history and inane logic is clearly sub par, in comparison to
your
>> demonstrated superiority.
>
> Evidentally, you tend to name calling, that is an
> inferior trait, in normal discourse.

Dickhead.

>
>> > LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
>> > Ever heard of NATO?
>>
>> > > Dan
>>
>> > Regrads
>> > Ken
>>
>> Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
>> Germany.
>
> Well then <duh> you should know the Afghan mission is
> a NATO operation and entire force of NATO cannot get Bin
> Lauden, so why do think the Taliban could, you're wasting?


Uh yeh.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:d8672800-8d51-42fc-
:

> On Feb 25, 10:11 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> So, you're an Altoid. I used to fly in there ( down the ridge) in a 310
>> full of cancelled checkes every day. Interesting airport!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> How do you get one of those canceled check gigs? Seems like that would
> be the best way to learn the ME business, but quick!

Well, I was flying a Twin Beech out of Philly and this contract came up as
well, so the boss bought a 310 and I ended up doing it every
night.Johnstown-Altoona-Harrisburg-Philly-Harrisburg-Altoona-Johnstown. I
don't know if they still do it in this day and age. I had to stay in some
fleapit in Johnstown during the day. I liked the 310, but with the
cancelled checks on board it was almost always at the edge of it's aft CG.
Sometimes well beyond. When I complained, my boss checked it out and
decided that it was even worse than I though and pulled the aircon out of
the back of the airplane. It was a lot of work to fly instruments, though.
If you took your eyes off it for a second it was on it's side. The twin
Beech would happily fly along all by itself with only the occasional nudge
in the right direction.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 10:23 am, "Allen" > wrote:
>
>>> They are all pretty much out of business now with the coming of the
>>> electronic transaction era. Whole fleets of aircraft have been sold
>>> because of it.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *H. Allen Smith*
>>> WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.
>>
>> That makes sense -- who writes checks anymore?
>>
>
> Even if checks are written they are scanned and sent electronically.
> Hence the reason it is almost impossible to get an original check back
> from your bank.
>

These were all government checks. THey were all punch cards, in fact. Boxes
and boxes of 'em.
And we lost some of them so next time you tell someone it was lost in the
mail you can do it with a straight face!


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > How do you get one of those canceled check gigs? Seems like that would
> > be the best way to learn the ME business, but quick!
>
> Well, I was flying a Twin Beech out of Philly and this contract came up as
> well, so the boss bought a 310 and I ended up doing it every
> night.Johnstown-Altoona-Harrisburg-Philly-Harrisburg-Altoona-Johnstown. I
> don't know if they still do it in this day and age. I had to stay in some
> fleapit in Johnstown during the day. I liked the 310, but with the
> cancelled checks on board it was almost always at the edge of it's aft CG.
> Sometimes well beyond. When I complained, my boss checked it out and
> decided that it was even worse than I though and pulled the aircon out of
> the back of the airplane. It was a lot of work to fly instruments, though.
> If you took your eyes off it for a second it was on it's side. The twin
> Beech would happily fly along all by itself with only the occasional nudge
> in the right direction.
>
> bertie

That would be some bumpy flying when the wind's from the west or
east...

And it's amazing how there's a line of scud that hangs around from
Blue Mountain to Laurel Ridge no matter how CAVU it is everywhere
else....

Harrisburg as in MDT?

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 26, 3:32 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > How do you get one of those canceled check gigs? Seems like that
>> > would be the best way to learn the ME business, but quick!
>>
>> Well, I was flying a Twin Beech out of Philly and this contract came
>> up as well, so the boss bought a 310 and I ended up doing it every
>> night.Johnstown-Altoona-Harrisburg-Philly-Harrisburg-Altoona-
Johnstown
>> . I don't know if they still do it in this day and age. I had to
>> stay in some fleapit in Johnstown during the day. I liked the 310,
>> but with the cancelled checks on board it was almost always at the
>> edge of it's aft CG. Sometimes well beyond. When I complained, my
>> boss checked it out and decided that it was even worse than I though
>> and pulled the aircon out of the back of the airplane. It was a lot
>> of work to fly instruments, though. If you took your eyes off it for
>> a second it was on it's side. The twin Beech would happily fly along
>> all by itself with only the occasional nudge in the right direction.
>>
>> bertie
>
> That would be some bumpy flying when the wind's from the west or
> east...


Mm, yeah, prolly. I remember getting stuck in standing wave and barely
able to hold my altitude some days.
>
> And it's amazing how there's a line of scud that hangs around from
> Blue Mountain to Laurel Ridge no matter how CAVU it is everywhere
> else....
>
> Harrisburg as in MDT?
>


Yes, Middleton, right? I was in and out of there quite a lot over the
yeas. Right past three mile island...


Bertie
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 4:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > That would be some bumpy flying when the wind's from the west or
> > east...
>
> Mm, yeah, prolly. I remember getting stuck in standing wave and barely
> able to hold my altitude some days.

It was sad to fly a Cherokee 180 westbound and watched the trucks pass
me on the Turnpike.

That washboard topography can make for some pretty nasty bumps.

> Yes, Middleton, right? I was in and out of there quite a lot over the
> yeas. Right past three mile island...
>
> Bertie


Yep! Middletown, PA -- Three Mile Island cooling towers are 5 mile
final, IIRC.

Used to be an Air Force base. Across the river is Capital City -- much
more GA friendly.


Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:c1fedd92-4459-4191-
:

> On Feb 26, 4:53 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > That would be some bumpy flying when the wind's from the west or
>> > east...
>>
>> Mm, yeah, prolly. I remember getting stuck in standing wave and barely
>> able to hold my altitude some days.
>
> It was sad to fly a Cherokee 180 westbound and watched the trucks pass
> me on the Turnpike.

Hate that.
>
> That washboard topography can make for some pretty nasty bumps.
>
>> Yes, Middleton, right? I was in and out of there quite a lot over the
>> yeas. Right past three mile island...
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Yep! Middletown, PA -- Three Mile Island cooling towers are 5 mile
> final, IIRC.
>
> Used to be an Air Force base. Across the river is Capital City -- much
> more GA friendly.
>

Wasn't one in my time so it must have been long ago. I do recall seeing a
coupel of F7Fs in the hangar there for some reason. I don't remember there
even being another airport. We would have needed the ils into the place,
though.


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 26, 12:07 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
> > captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
> > back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
> > enslaved.
>
> What does this have to do with your argument?

You don't Need To Know, fine with me.
Ken
[snip waste]

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:f96d2263-aa87-4dcb-
:

> On Feb 26, 12:07 pm, " > wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 2:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
>> > captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
>> > back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
>> > enslaved.
>>
>> What does this have to do with your argument?
>
> You don't Need To Know, fine with me.


Oow! Been eatin plenty of the red ones today, eh Kennie?


> Ken
> [snip waste]
>
Snort!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 5:23 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
> > > captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
> > > back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
> > > enslaved.
>
> > What does this have to do with your argument?
>
> You don't Need To Know, fine with me.
> Ken
> [snip waste]

:: YAWN ::

We tire of this one. Off with his head!

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 5:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > Used to be an Air Force base. Across the river is Capital City -- much
> > more GA friendly.
>
> Wasn't one in my time so it must have been long ago. I do recall seeing a
> coupel of F7Fs in the hangar there for some reason. I don't remember there
> even being another airport. We would have needed the ils into the place,
> though.
>
> Bertie

I think the base was pretty active in that sissy World War 2. In the
last 30 years it has hosted an EC-130 ANG unit -- 193rd Special Ops
group. I spent a couple of years there.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 26, 5:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > Used to be an Air Force base. Across the river is Capital City --
>> > much more GA friendly.
>>
>> Wasn't one in my time so it must have been long ago. I do recall
>> seeing a coupel of F7Fs in the hangar there for some reason. I don't
>> remember there even being another airport. We would have needed the
>> ils into the place, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think the base was pretty active in that sissy World War 2. In the
> last 30 years it has hosted an EC-130 ANG unit -- 193rd Special Ops
> group. I spent a couple of years there.


OK, I don't remember seeing them there, but that's jut the memory! I do
remember th eapproach at Altoona, though. Or maybe it was Johnstown. You
basically flew down the side of a hill much of the way.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 6:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> OK, I don't remember seeing them there, but that's jut the memory! I do
> remember th eapproach at Altoona, though. Or maybe it was Johnstown. You
> basically flew down the side of a hill much of the way.

Probably Johnstown (though Altoona has the same topogrpahy -- but I
haven't reason to fly to Altoona yet).

I think the Rwy 5 approach parallels the ridge.

We just had the local DE go down in a Bonanza last Thursday night into
KCBE (Cumberland, MD). No NTSB prelim yet, but the educated guess is
ice.

The Cumberland airport sits between a very steep, tall ridge to the
west and some lower to the east. Fly it in daytime and you'll think
twice about Circle to land at night.

It's easy to second guess but man I hope I stay scared long enough to
avoid LIFR and Ice into a place like CBE for a long, long time.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:cd31ab03-0ade-4db5-
:

> On Feb 26, 6:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> OK, I don't remember seeing them there, but that's jut the memory! I do
>> remember th eapproach at Altoona, though. Or maybe it was Johnstown. You
>> basically flew down the side of a hill much of the way.
>
> Probably Johnstown (though Altoona has the same topogrpahy -- but I
> haven't reason to fly to Altoona yet).
>
> I think the Rwy 5 approach parallels the ridge.
>
> We just had the local DE go down in a Bonanza last Thursday night into
> KCBE (Cumberland, MD). No NTSB prelim yet, but the educated guess is
> ice.
>
> The Cumberland airport sits between a very steep, tall ridge to the
> west and some lower to the east. Fly it in daytime and you'll think
> twice about Circle to land at night.
>
> It's easy to second guess but man I hope I stay scared long enough to
> avoid LIFR and Ice into a place like CBE for a long, long time.

Yeah, ice is a big problem in that region. I remember it was common and was
frequently from the suface to well above my ceiling, anyway. In the midwest
it always seemed more stratified, so it was always possible to be somewhere
the ice wasn't. Not so in the hills. I think it was probably Altoona I'm
thinking of with the approach. A southerly runway, anyway.. I don't thnk I
was ever grounded by the weather, which seems remarkable to me now.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 6:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Yeah, ice is a big problem in that region. I remember it was common and was
> frequently from the suface to well above my ceiling, anyway. In the midwest
> it always seemed more stratified, so it was always possible to be somewhere
> the ice wasn't. Not so in the hills. I think it was probably Altoona I'm
> thinking of with the approach. A southerly runway, anyway.. I don't thnk I
> was ever grounded by the weather, which seems remarkable to me now.
>
> Bertie

That is amazing! You must have been full deice, G1000, turbine -- the
works.

This winter has been non-stop ice -- warm enough and wet enough to
keep it constantly above and throughout the altitudes we fly. The
uplift created by the ridges wreaks more havoc than we realize.

The airliners are far above so there's no compelling interest to study
the phenomenon, but it is definitely unique.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 26, 6:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, ice is a big problem in that region. I remember it was common
>> and was frequently from the suface to well above my ceiling, anyway.
>> In the midwest it always seemed more stratified, so it was always
>> possible to be somewhere the ice wasn't. Not so in the hills. I think
>> it was probably Altoona I'm thinking of with the approach. A
>> southerly runway, anyway.. I don't thnk I was ever grounded by the
>> weather, which seems remarkable to me now.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> That is amazing! You must have been full deice, G1000, turbine -- the
> works.

G1000? What's that? It was a stock 310 but mostly I flew a Twin Beech
around that area. We had boots and electric props on the 310 and boots
and alchohol props and usually alky windscreens on the 18s.
>
> This winter has been non-stop ice -- warm enough and wet enough to
> keep it constantly above and throughout the altitudes we fly. The
> uplift created by the ridges wreaks more havoc than we realize.
>
> The airliners are far above so there's no compelling interest to study
> the phenomenon, but it is definitely unique.

Yeah, I remember it well. I never got into any real trouble with ice,
but my boss when I worked in MI did once. He just made it into some
place in Ohio. I did get some in Michigan that caused an engine to
cough, but I managed to clear it. I had also got a lot on the bottom of
the wing holding. I went along with a guy in a 310 once and we got a lot
on the tip tanks which was causing us a lot of grief, but we were never
in the situation where we couldn't hold altitude.
OTOH, I have come down in singles covered with ice more than once!

Bertie
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> G1000? What's that? It was a stock 310 but mostly I flew a Twin Beech
> around that area. We had boots and electric props on the 310 and boots
> and alchohol props and usually alky windscreens on the 18s.

Not many Bonanza's with even that level of deice on board.

> Yeah, I remember it well. I never got into any real trouble with ice,
> but my boss when I worked in MI did once. He just made it into some
> place in Ohio. I did get some in Michigan that caused an engine to
> cough, but I managed to clear it. I had also got a lot on the bottom of
> the wing holding. I went along with a guy in a 310 once and we got a lot
> on the tip tanks which was causing us a lot of grief, but we were never
> in the situation where we couldn't hold altitude.
> OTOH, I have come down in singles covered with ice more than once!
>
> Bertie

I've been chicken so far this winter. But they're not my airplanes.


Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:a8c90f28-9a1a-4a7a-
:

> On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> G1000? What's that? It was a stock 310 but mostly I flew a Twin Beech
>> around that area. We had boots and electric props on the 310 and boots
>> and alchohol props and usually alky windscreens on the 18s.
>
> Not many Bonanza's with even that level of deice on board.
>
>> Yeah, I remember it well. I never got into any real trouble with ice,
>> but my boss when I worked in MI did once. He just made it into some
>> place in Ohio. I did get some in Michigan that caused an engine to
>> cough, but I managed to clear it. I had also got a lot on the bottom of
>> the wing holding. I went along with a guy in a 310 once and we got a lot
>> on the tip tanks which was causing us a lot of grief, but we were never
>> in the situation where we couldn't hold altitude.
>> OTOH, I have come down in singles covered with ice more than once!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I've been chicken so far this winter. But they're not my airplanes.
>

Nothing chicken about staying out of ice if you have no de-ice. I should
explain about the icing in singles thing. I was only ever in ice in singles
where there was relatively warm air down low. It comes off quick whenyou
pass the freezing level. You would want a freezing level a good 3 or 4
thousand above the terrain and even then it's not a good idea. I did some
ferrying years ago and the freezing level over the ocean is alwyas at a
reasonable level even in winter. So if you got some ice you went down and
if it wasn't too thick it would come off almost instantly once the OAT was
above freezing. You wouldn't have that luxury in the appalachians, of
course.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 9:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:a8c90f28-9a1a-4a7a-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> G1000? What's that? It was a stock 310 but mostly I flew a Twin Beech
> >> around that area. We had boots and electric props on the 310 and boots
> >> and alchohol props and usually alky windscreens on the 18s.
>
> > Not many Bonanza's with even that level of deice on board.
>
> >> Yeah, I remember it well. I never got into any real trouble with ice,
> >> but my boss when I worked in MI did once. He just made it into some
> >> place in Ohio. I did get some in Michigan that caused an engine to
> >> cough, but I managed to clear it. I had also got a lot on the bottom of
> >> the wing holding. I went along with a guy in a 310 once and we got a lot
> >> on the tip tanks which was causing us a lot of grief, but we were never
> >> in the situation where we couldn't hold altitude.
> >> OTOH, I have come down in singles covered with ice more than once!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > I've been chicken so far this winter. But they're not my airplanes.
>
> Nothing chicken about staying out of ice if you have no de-ice. I should
> explain about the icing in singles thing. I was only ever in ice in singles
> where there was relatively warm air down low. It comes off quick whenyou
> pass the freezing level. You would want a freezing level a good 3 or 4
> thousand above the terrain and even then it's not a good idea. I did some
> ferrying years ago and the freezing level over the ocean is alwyas at a
> reasonable level even in winter. So if you got some ice you went down and
> if it wasn't too thick it would come off almost instantly once the OAT was
> above freezing. You wouldn't have that luxury in the appalachians, of
> course.
>
> Bertie

True.. there's no where I need to be that bad. Buddy Holly and the Big
Bopper proved that Bonanza's and winter don't mix very well.

I'm guessing with the slick airframe the effects of ice are probably
more damaging then to\ something like a 182?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 26, 9:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote in
>> news:a8c90f28-9a1a-4a7a-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 26, 7:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> G1000? What's that? It was a stock 310 but mostly I flew a Twin
>> >> Beech around that area. We had boots and electric props on the 310
>> >> and boots and alchohol props and usually alky windscreens on the
>> >> 18s.
>>
>> > Not many Bonanza's with even that level of deice on board.
>>
>> >> Yeah, I remember it well. I never got into any real trouble with
>> >> ice, but my boss when I worked in MI did once. He just made it
>> >> into some place in Ohio. I did get some in Michigan that caused an
>> >> engine to cough, but I managed to clear it. I had also got a lot
>> >> on the bottom of the wing holding. I went along with a guy in a
>> >> 310 once and we got a lot on the tip tanks which was causing us a
>> >> lot of grief, but we were never in the situation where we couldn't
>> >> hold altitude. OTOH, I have come down in singles covered with ice
>> >> more than once!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > I've been chicken so far this winter. But they're not my airplanes.
>>
>> Nothing chicken about staying out of ice if you have no de-ice. I
>> should explain about the icing in singles thing. I was only ever in
>> ice in singles where there was relatively warm air down low. It comes
>> off quick whenyou pass the freezing level. You would want a freezing
>> level a good 3 or 4 thousand above the terrain and even then it's not
>> a good idea. I did some ferrying years ago and the freezing level
>> over the ocean is alwyas at a reasonable level even in winter. So if
>> you got some ice you went down and if it wasn't too thick it would
>> come off almost instantly once the OAT was above freezing. You
>> wouldn't have that luxury in the appalachians, of course.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> True.. there's no where I need to be that bad. Buddy Holly and the Big
> Bopper proved that Bonanza's and winter don't mix very well.
>
> I'm guessing with the slick airframe the effects of ice are probably
> more damaging then to\ something like a 182?
>


I wouldn't think there's much difference. I've had a few airplanes in
ice, but not a Bonanaza. It's hard to quantify since each accretion is
unique. I've been in a 172 in fairly bad ice, IMC and completely lost my
ability to hold alitutde in just a few seconds. I was fairly high. 9,000
maybe? it was pretty warm below and I told ATC I needed descent and
needed it now. they said "we'l have it for you shortly", and I had to
reply that it didn't matter, I was coming down anyway at that stage.
I've flown Mooneys in ice and they seem to be better at just plain not
picking it up than most airplanes. Again, hard to quantify, I could just
possibly have been lucky with the conditions. Cessna singles seem to
suffer worst with is. Struts, long gear legs and what not, I guess. It's
a complete non-event in jets, though. Most types rarely even get
airframe icing and even if they do the hot wings blos it off quickly.
The engines are more of a worry, but the anti-ice on them works well.

Bertie

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Hi Jeff, studied your post.
>
> On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > > > > > > option, I suppose?
>
> > > > > > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > > > > > > business interests.
>
> > > > > > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> > > > > > digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> > > > > > one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> > > > > > respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> > > > > > explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> > > > > > trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> > > > > > much economic damage to everyone involved.
> > > > > > Written in 1912.
> > > > > > -JTD
>
> > > > > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> > > > > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> > > > > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>
> > > > ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.
>
> > > > > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> > > > > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> > > > > told they should.
>
> > > > Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
> > > > Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
> > > > that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
> > > > past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
> > > > from devolving into war?
> > > > JTD
>
> > > I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.
> > > Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
> > > sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
> > > weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
> > > one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
> > > ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.
>
> > Okay, hang on.
>
> > In your original post, you implied that wars weren't going to happen
> > any more, because they would be a "business mistake", that the world
> > had gotten too interdependent for a wider war. Others (including
> > myself) pointed out that for most of human history, war has been a bad
> > move, economically, and that in fact your thesis had been put forward
> > early in the 20th Century just before the most devastating wars the
> > human race has ever fought-
>
> Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
> serious war is totally genocidal.

I apologize to the group for not snipping this part, but I think it's
sufficiently interesting to watch the entire interplay of this
argument. You're now reduced to arguing that World Wars I and II
weren't all that bad, when in fact they were some of the most
devastating conflicts the human race has ever waged. They weren't
completely genocidal- although World War II came damn close, on some
fronts- but they still killed tens of millions of people and ruined
three of the world's great industrial powers, to the point that two of
them had to be rebuilt by the victors and the other one had to loot
Europe to get back on its feet.

Serious war in the ancient period was not typically genocidal, just
like serious war today- it was fought for objectives that usually did
not include "And kill everyone on the other side". The exceptions,
such as Carthage at the end of the Punic Wars, Genghis Khan, and the
Crusades get a lot of press, but they were just that- exceptions.
Sargon I didn't kill everyone on the other side. Neither did the
Persians, or Alexander, or the Romans in most cases, or the combatants
of the Hundred Years' War, and so on. The "cut off their hands and
sow the fields with salt" treatment makes for good historical reading,
but it *didn't* actually happen that often.


> > and that wars keep happening anyway,
> > besides being really bad for business in general. In the post you
> > replied to, I pointed those things out, and asked what you thought had
> > changed in the years since that meant that this time, business
> > concerns would trump out, and wars wouldn't happen.
>
> > In response, you're invoking 5000 years of history, and calling us to
> > analyze the wars that humans have fought.
>
> From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
> present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
> is Right", and War => Strength, including economical
> but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
> unified by force.

And this proves...what, exactly? Sorry, but as far as I can tell
that's a total non sequieter. What does that have to do with anything
we've been discussing? War's never unified the world by force,
although Alexander got pretty close, but it's done a bang-up job of
fulfilling various countries' objectives of the moment throughout
history. You've yet to present evidence that today is any different.

> The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
> (according to our simulations).

Which ones?

> > That's a non sequieter, but let's look at it for a second. The last
> > time anyone could make a case that "war pays for war" between
> > civilized states with a straight face was in the early 18th Century,
> > when conscript armies under folks like Blenheim were merrily marching
> > back and forth blowing the Hell out of civilized Europe. They spent
> > most of their time "levying contributions", which is a nice way of
> > saying "we marched into this state and forcibly stripped it of pretty
> > much anything of value to feed and pay the troops". Since the armies
> > didn't require a terrible lot of manufactured goods that couldn't be
> > captured and since international trade wasn't a big deal at the time,
> > this meant that an army in the field could more or less sustain itself
> > indefinitely with minimal expenditure from home. Any territory it
> > captured was more or less gravy for the homeland. As you can imagine,
> > this led to some awfully long wars.
>
> I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
> America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
> based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
> everyone they were purchasing goods from were
> far more economically more powerful, because
> they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

Well, not really. What did happen was that Spain had a money system
based on gold, which up until then had been very rare in Europe, and
then imported a lot of gold from the New World. What followed was a
classic demonstration of "inflation in action" that made Spanish money
almost worthless and wrecked their economy pretty thoroughly. It
didn't help that at about the same time Phillip II of Spain died after
a long reign during which he allowed almost nobody else to actually
make decisions, which paralyzed the Spanish government at a very
inopportune time.

Not really relevant to what I was discussing above, and as I mentioned
above I may have to revise my thesis on war paying for war slightly
after discussions with Dan. Nevertheless, I'd argue that war almost
never actually pays for itself, and that this has been the case for
quite some time.

>
>
> > *After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
> > an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
> > manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
> > clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
> > have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
> > contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
> > takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
> > would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
> > almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
> > could get out of it.
> > [All of this applies, of course, to wars between cultures with roughly
> > equal technology. I haven't looked at the figures in detail, but it's
> > entirely possible that some of the colonial wars that pitted breech-
> > loading rifles against spears ended up being economic wins in the long
> > run. Although conquest was generally one thing, pacification
> > another.]
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
> the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

That's a whole different discussion that I *really* don't want to get
into. It's not really relevant to what we're talking about.

>
> > The thing is, though, that wars still happen between industrialized
> > countries, and have for a long time. Even though they're economic
> > losers, they still happen. Because they can bring political benefits,
> > like more territory for the Big Man to rule or showing that your
> > country is not to be trifled with. Because they can fulfill
> > somebody's idea of national destiny. Because people do stupid things,
> > don't consider the consequences that their actions might have years
> > down the road, and get painted into corners. And any of those things
> > could still happen between the U.S. and China.
>
> > I devoutly hope they don't, because the one thing I do think you're
> > right about is that such a war would very likely be ruinous for both
> > sides and because I think wars in general are to be avoided, even if
> > they're sometimes necessary. But saying that it can't happen is
> > wrong, and dangerous because if we assume it can't happen we may not
> > be vigilant enough to keep it from happening.
>
> > So, with the above in mind: why, specifically, do you think that the
> > U.S. and China are so economically interdependent as to render war
> > between them impossible?
>
> I claimed war would be a bad business decision,
> only nothing is impossible,

War is a bad decision from a business point of view. But nation-
states aren't businesses. Thus, the fact that the U.S. and China are
economically interdependent (which was what we were originally
discussing) may make a war between them less likely, but does not rule
it out. Looks like we agree on that.

-JTD

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 26, 2:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 9:59 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
> > > > > serious war is totally genocidal.
>
> > > > 50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?
>
> > > It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
> > > perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
> > > WW1 did, something few know about.
> > > Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.
>
> > So according to you, a war is "sissy" if the 'entire race" wasn't
> > wiped out.
>
> POW's where taken in WW1&2,

Except on the Eastern Front during WWII and in the island fighting
against the Japanese, when they mostly weren't.

> but historically, the
> captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
> back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
> enslaved.

Except when they weren't, which was most of the time. See my previous
post for discussion.

> > > > Hunh? Which? SimCity?
>
> > > No, the sims were automated.
>
> > Well, there you go. Who can gainsay such compelling evidence! They
> > were AUTOMATED!
>
> The "automation" removes contamination.
> It's rather like growing bacteria on a Petri dish.
> One merely introduces various bacteria on to
> the dish with variables in it's reproduction habits,
> and statistically determines the winner.
> It's bit more complex, but you get the picture.

OK, hang on. I did my degree in molecular biology and I work in a
research lab, and I can't figure out what experiment you're
describing. I also know that:

a) What works in a model system does not always work in a more complex
system. The bacteria that grows out of control on a petri dish may
not grow as well in a living host, and so on. There are always
variables you didn't allow for.

b) Any experiment is only as good as its design, not as good as its
techniques. Having an automated simulation is meaningless if it's not
designed to reflect reality, just like having clean glassware in the
lab is meaningless if you don't have proper controls. If I'm going to
accept that your automated models show something relevant to the real
world you're going to have to convince me that they actually model
what's going on in the real world accurately.

<snip>

>
> > > LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
> > > Ever heard of NATO?
>
> > > > Dan
>
> > > Regrads
> > > Ken
>
> > Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
> > Germany.
>
> Well then <duh> you should know the Afghan mission is
> a NATO operation and entire force of NATO cannot get Bin
> Lauden, so why do think the Taliban could, you're wasting?
> Ken

Sigh. I know I said I'd stay out of this, but...does it occur to you
that the U.S. and NATO *might* have been just a bit more interested in
finding bin Laden than the Taliban were?

-JTD

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 26, 6:12 pm, " > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 5:23 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
> > > > captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
> > > > back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
> > > > enslaved.
>
> > > What does this have to do with your argument?
>
> > You don't Need To Know, fine with me.
> > Ken
> > [snip waste]
>
> :: YAWN ::
>
> We tire of this one. Off with his head!

We shall endeavor to find a more interesting one next time, Sire. Ah
well. Shall we bring in the dancing girls now? :-)

-JTD

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 11:35 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:

>
> > We tire of this one. Off with his head!
>
> We shall endeavor to find a more interesting one next time, Sire. Ah
> well. Shall we bring in the dancing girls now? :-)
>
> -JTD

You need ask???

Off with your head!

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 1:54 am, "Owner" > wrote:
> WHAT THE **** DOES THIS CRAP HAVE TO DO WITH AVIATION???
>
Wars are bad for aviation, except when they produce the P-51.

And the SR-71

And the F-86

And the Jet Engine.

And cool flight suits.


Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 11:33 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
>
> Sigh. I know I said I'd stay out of this, but...does it occur to you
> that the U.S. and NATO *might* have been just a bit more interested in
> finding bin Laden than the Taliban were?
>
> -JTD

Who knows what NATO wants anymore?

The US -- well, it's not as easy as "find the guy and kill him and
everything will go back to the wonderful Clinton years." (Even though
Bin Laden attacked more targets during those years than the Bush
years).

First, with Bin Laden in the mountains, Pakistan has an incentive to
remain in play. So far they have rounded up hundreds of his
accomplices, kept pressure on the Taliban sympathizers, and kept the
pressure on internally against fellow fanatics. None of this done
incredibly well, of course, but as expected from such a splintered
mess of a country.

Second, the US public would probably heave a collective sigh and
think, "Good, now that's over" once the images are broadcast. The
drive-bys would declare that everything bad is over, and the weasels
would start demanding all troops immediately be brought home and given
a warm blankie and some milk..

Even though "getting bin Laden" only takes out one ultra rich Muslim
jihadist. There are many, many more willing to step up and take his
place.

His continued miserable existence -- while unjust and annoying to
those of us who want him handed over to NYPD/FDNY for 24 hours --
continues to expand our knowledge of his network and his organization.
It also gives moral justification to various activities worldwide
you'd rather not know about.


Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 10:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> I wouldn't think there's much difference. I've had a few airplanes in
> ice, but not a Bonanaza. It's hard to quantify since each accretion is
> unique. I've been in a 172 in fairly bad ice, IMC and completely lost my
> ability to hold alitutde in just a few seconds. I was fairly high. 9,000
> maybe? it was pretty warm below and I told ATC I needed descent and
> needed it now. they said "we'l have it for you shortly", and I had to
> reply that it didn't matter, I was coming down anyway at that stage.
> I've flown Mooneys in ice and they seem to be better at just plain not
> picking it up than most airplanes. Again, hard to quantify, I could just
> possibly have been lucky with the conditions. Cessna singles seem to
> suffer worst with is. Struts, long gear legs and what not, I guess. It's
> a complete non-event in jets, though. Most types rarely even get
> airframe icing and even if they do the hot wings blos it off quickly.
> The engines are more of a worry, but the anti-ice on them works well.
>
> Bertie

I don't plan on trying it in the Bonanza -- at least not this A36 and
certainly not the straight 35..

There are a few out there with TKS and other systems, but it seems if
you have that need you should be flying a twin or a turboprop, not a
normally aspirated Bonanza.

I haven't flown a 172 that I would want to fly any length of time in
IMC -- you're in it too long as you're so slow, the big wing catches
every bump, and the climb performance is anemic (unless you have the
180 HP conversion).



Dan

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 11:25 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:

> I apologize to the group for not snipping this part, but I think it's
> sufficiently interesting to watch the entire interplay of this
> argument. You're now reduced to arguing that World Wars I and II
> weren't all that bad, when in fact they were some of the most
> devastating conflicts the human race has ever waged.

> -JTD

Not exactly.

There's no "interplay."

There's a moron making idiotic claims and someone with sense refuting
each one.

That's not an argument. That's a smackdown.


Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi Jeff,
I read your post and respect it.
Maybe we should repost this discussion in a more
appropriate group, it's far away from piloting :-).
Ken
PS: Let me know if you do.

On Feb 26, 8:25 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
> On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Jeff, studied your post.
>
> > On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty >
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
> > > > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > > > Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
> > > > > > > > option, I suppose?
>
> > > > > > > > Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
> > > > > > > > business interests.
>
> > > > > > > Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
> > > > > > > digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
> > > > > > > one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
> > > > > > > respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
> > > > > > > explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
> > > > > > > trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
> > > > > > > much economic damage to everyone involved.
> > > > > > > Written in 1912.
> > > > > > > -JTD
>
> > > > > > That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
> > > > > > 1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
> > > > > > ICBM's because the other are guys are.
>
> > > > > ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.
>
> > > > > > Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
> > > > > > or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
> > > > > > told they should.
>
> > > > > Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
> > > > > Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
> > > > > that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
> > > > > past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
> > > > > from devolving into war?
> > > > > JTD
>
> > > > I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.
> > > > Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
> > > > sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
> > > > weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
> > > > one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
> > > > ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.
>
> > > Okay, hang on.
>
> > > In your original post, you implied that wars weren't going to happen
> > > any more, because they would be a "business mistake", that the world
> > > had gotten too interdependent for a wider war. Others (including
> > > myself) pointed out that for most of human history, war has been a bad
> > > move, economically, and that in fact your thesis had been put forward
> > > early in the 20th Century just before the most devastating wars the
> > > human race has ever fought-
>
> > Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
> > serious war is totally genocidal.
>
> I apologize to the group for not snipping this part, but I think it's
> sufficiently interesting to watch the entire interplay of this
> argument. You're now reduced to arguing that World Wars I and II
> weren't all that bad, when in fact they were some of the most
> devastating conflicts the human race has ever waged. They weren't
> completely genocidal- although World War II came damn close, on some
> fronts- but they still killed tens of millions of people and ruined
> three of the world's great industrial powers, to the point that two of
> them had to be rebuilt by the victors and the other one had to loot
> Europe to get back on its feet.
>
> Serious war in the ancient period was not typically genocidal, just
> like serious war today- it was fought for objectives that usually did
> not include "And kill everyone on the other side". The exceptions,
> such as Carthage at the end of the Punic Wars, Genghis Khan, and the
> Crusades get a lot of press, but they were just that- exceptions.
> Sargon I didn't kill everyone on the other side. Neither did the
> Persians, or Alexander, or the Romans in most cases, or the combatants
> of the Hundred Years' War, and so on. The "cut off their hands and
> sow the fields with salt" treatment makes for good historical reading,
> but it *didn't* actually happen that often.
>
> > > and that wars keep happening anyway,
> > > besides being really bad for business in general. In the post you
> > > replied to, I pointed those things out, and asked what you thought had
> > > changed in the years since that meant that this time, business
> > > concerns would trump out, and wars wouldn't happen.
>
> > > In response, you're invoking 5000 years of history, and calling us to
> > > analyze the wars that humans have fought.
>
> > From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
> > present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
> > is Right", and War => Strength, including economical
> > but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
> > unified by force.
>
> And this proves...what, exactly? Sorry, but as far as I can tell
> that's a total non sequieter. What does that have to do with anything
> we've been discussing? War's never unified the world by force,
> although Alexander got pretty close, but it's done a bang-up job of
> fulfilling various countries' objectives of the moment throughout
> history. You've yet to present evidence that today is any different.
>
> > The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
> > (according to our simulations).
>
> Which ones?
>
>
>
> > > That's a non sequieter, but let's look at it for a second. The last
> > > time anyone could make a case that "war pays for war" between
> > > civilized states with a straight face was in the early 18th Century,
> > > when conscript armies under folks like Blenheim were merrily marching
> > > back and forth blowing the Hell out of civilized Europe. They spent
> > > most of their time "levying contributions", which is a nice way of
> > > saying "we marched into this state and forcibly stripped it of pretty
> > > much anything of value to feed and pay the troops". Since the armies
> > > didn't require a terrible lot of manufactured goods that couldn't be
> > > captured and since international trade wasn't a big deal at the time,
> > > this meant that an army in the field could more or less sustain itself
> > > indefinitely with minimal expenditure from home. Any territory it
> > > captured was more or less gravy for the homeland. As you can imagine,
> > > this led to some awfully long wars.
>
> > I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
> > America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
> > based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
> > everyone they were purchasing goods from were
> > far more economically more powerful, because
> > they had a GNP, Spain had very little.
>
> Well, not really. What did happen was that Spain had a money system
> based on gold, which up until then had been very rare in Europe, and
> then imported a lot of gold from the New World. What followed was a
> classic demonstration of "inflation in action" that made Spanish money
> almost worthless and wrecked their economy pretty thoroughly. It
> didn't help that at about the same time Phillip II of Spain died after
> a long reign during which he allowed almost nobody else to actually
> make decisions, which paralyzed the Spanish government at a very
> inopportune time.
>
> Not really relevant to what I was discussing above, and as I mentioned
> above I may have to revise my thesis on war paying for war slightly
> after discussions with Dan. Nevertheless, I'd argue that war almost
> never actually pays for itself, and that this has been the case for
> quite some time.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > *After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
> > > an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
> > > manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
> > > clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
> > > have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
> > > contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
> > > takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
> > > would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
> > > almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
> > > could get out of it.
> > > [All of this applies, of course, to wars between cultures with roughly
> > > equal technology. I haven't looked at the figures in detail, but it's
> > > entirely possible that some of the colonial wars that pitted breech-
> > > loading rifles against spears ended up being economic wins in the long
> > > run. Although conquest was generally one thing, pacification
> > > another.]
>
> > I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
> > the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.
>
> That's a whole different discussion that I *really* don't want to get
> into. It's not really relevant to what we're talking about.
>
>
>
> > > The thing is, though, that wars still happen between industrialized
> > > countries, and have for a long time. Even though they're economic
> > > losers, they still happen. Because they can bring political benefits,
> > > like more territory for the Big Man to rule or showing that your
> > > country is not to be trifled with. Because they can fulfill
> > > somebody's idea of national destiny. Because people do stupid things,
> > > don't consider the consequences that their actions might have years
> > > down the road, and get painted into corners. And any of those things
> > > could still happen between the U.S. and China.
>
> > > I devoutly hope they don't, because the one thing I do think you're
> > > right about is that such a war would very likely be ruinous for both
> > > sides and because I think wars in general are to be
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:30a2796b-6108-4101-
:
>
> I don't plan on trying it in the Bonanza -- at least not this A36 and
> certainly not the straight 35..
>
> There are a few out there with TKS and other systems, but it seems if
> you have that need you should be flying a twin or a turboprop, not a
> normally aspirated Bonanza.
>
> I haven't flown a 172 that I would want to fly any length of time in
> IMC -- you're in it too long as you're so slow, the big wing catches
> every bump, and the climb performance is anemic (unless you have the
> 180 HP conversion).
>

Flown smaller and slower than that IMC! you get used to it..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> Hi Jeff,
> I read your post and respect it.
> Maybe we should repost this discussion in a more
> appropriate group, it's far away from piloting :-).
> Ken
> PS: Let me know if you do.


Hey you fish long enouhg yuo eventually find a masochist. Maybe Jeff's the
one!


Bertie

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Feb 27, 2:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote :
>
> > Hi Jeff,
> > I read your post and respect it.
> > Maybe we should repost this discussion in a more
> > appropriate group, it's far away from piloting :-).
> > Ken
> > PS: Let me know if you do.
>
> Hey you fish long enouhg yuo eventually find a masochist. Maybe Jeff's the
> one!

Tempting, but I think I just about hit my limit. It's
been...interesting.

Not least the descriptions of flying with trucks passing you on the
highway!

-JTD

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 2:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > I haven't flown a 172 that I would want to fly any length of time in
> > IMC -- you're in it too long as you're so slow, the big wing catches
> > every bump, and the climb performance is anemic (unless you have the
> > 180 HP conversion).
>
> Flown smaller and slower than that IMC! you get used to it..
>
> Bertie
Now what would that be?? A Tri-Pacer?

Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping 105 TAS.

:-)

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:75019a4e-31ec-48e7-
:

> On Feb 27, 2:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > I haven't flown a 172 that I would want to fly any length of time in
>> > IMC -- you're in it too long as you're so slow, the big wing catches
>> > every bump, and the climb performance is anemic (unless you have the
>> > 180 HP conversion).
>>
>> Flown smaller and slower than that IMC! you get used to it..
>>
>> Bertie
> Now what would that be?? A Tri-Pacer?

I have flown a Pacer instruments.. Just once
>
> Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping 105 TAS.

A 150. Quite a few times.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jeff Dougherty > wrote in
:

> On Feb 27, 2:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>>
>> om:
>>
>> > Hi Jeff,
>> > I read your post and respect it.
>> > Maybe we should repost this discussion in a more
>> > appropriate group, it's far away from piloting :-).
>> > Ken
>> > PS: Let me know if you do.
>>
>> Hey you fish long enouhg yuo eventually find a masochist. Maybe
>> Jeff's the one!
>
> Tempting, but I think I just about hit my limit. It's
> been...interesting.


Yes, who needs drugs when Kennie;s around?


Bertie

[LWG]

He was my DE years ago. He was one of the nicest guys I ever met.

Godspeed, Dave.

> We just had the local DE go down in a Bonanza last Thursday night into
> KCBE (Cumberland, MD). No NTSB prelim yet, but the educated guess is
> ice.

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi Jeff.

On Feb 27, 12:38 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote :
>
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > > I read your post and respect it.
> > > Maybe we should repost this discussion in a more
> > > appropriate group, it's far away from piloting :-).
> > > Ken
> > > PS: Let me know if you do.
>
> > Hey you fish long enouhg yuo eventually find a masochist. Maybe Jeff's the
> > one!
>
> Tempting, but I think I just about hit my limit. It's
> been...interesting.

For me too.

> Not least the descriptions of flying with trucks passing you on the
> highway!
> -JTD

Regards
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> Hi Jeff.
>
> On Feb 27, 12:38 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2:46 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>> >
>> > .com:
>>
>> > > Hi Jeff,
>> > > I read your post and respect it.
>> > > Maybe we should repost this discussion in a more
>> > > appropriate group, it's far away from piloting :-).
>> > > Ken
>> > > PS: Let me know if you do.
>>
>> > Hey you fish long enouhg yuo eventually find a masochist. Maybe
>> > Jeff's the one!
>>
>> Tempting, but I think I just about hit my limit. It's
>> been...interesting.
>
> For me too.
>

Someone steal your YO-YO?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping 105 TAS.
>
> A 150. Quite a few times.
>
> Bertie

Now what were you doing that you had to fly a 150 IMC?

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:8d789731-cc44-4bda-
:

> On Feb 27, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping 105 TAS.
>>
>> A 150. Quite a few times.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Now what were you doing that you had to fly a 150 IMC?

Ferrying one. Did a bunch of light singles at one time. Depending on what
you call IMC, I've done it norod in needle ball and airspeed aripalnes as
wel, buto only for short trips outside controlled airspace, but in the
system, I've done it in a 150/

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 2:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:8d789731-cc44-4bda-
> :
>
> > On Feb 27, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> > Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping 105 TAS.
>
> >> A 150. Quite a few times.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Now what were you doing that you had to fly a 150 IMC?
>
> Ferrying one. Did a bunch of light singles at one time. Depending on what
> you call IMC, I've done it norod in needle ball and airspeed aripalnes as
> wel, buto only for short trips outside controlled airspace, but in the
> system, I've done it in a 150/
>
> Bertie

Not too many places left outside of radar coverage, these days.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 1, 2:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote in
>> news:8d789731-cc44-4bda-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 27, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> > Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping
>> >> > 105 TAS.
>>
>> >> A 150. Quite a few times.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Now what were you doing that you had to fly a 150 IMC?
>>
>> Ferrying one. Did a bunch of light singles at one time. Depending on
>> what you call IMC, I've done it norod in needle ball and airspeed
>> aripalnes as wel, buto only for short trips outside controlled
>> airspace, but in the system, I've done it in a 150/
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Not too many places left outside of radar coverage, these days.
>


Well, i didn't say it was lately, and radar coverage hasn't got anything to
do with it anyway...
Oh, and there are plenty of places with no radar!




Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 3:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> > Not too many places left outside of radar coverage, these days.
>
> Well, i didn't say it was lately, and radar coverage hasn't got anything to
> do with it anyway...
> Oh, and there are plenty of places with no radar!
>
> Bertie

I'm on the east coast. My only SEL foray west was to PHX and back in
the A36. We had coverage the entire route, but stayed Victor airways
through the passes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 1, 3:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> > Not too many places left outside of radar coverage, these days.
>>
>> Well, i didn't say it was lately, and radar coverage hasn't got
>> anything to do with it anyway...
>> Oh, and there are plenty of places with no radar!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I'm on the east coast. My only SEL foray west was to PHX and back in
> the A36. We had coverage the entire route, but stayed Victor airways
> through the passes.
>

Yeah, I did a lot of what I was talking about on the east coast but a long
time ago. the 150 ferry was across the atlantic and th eneedle ball and
airspeed stuff was just transiting small areas of cloud. not very bright,
but when you're young...

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 4:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote :
>
> > On Mar 1, 3:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> > Not too many places left outside of radar coverage, these days.
>
> >> Well, i didn't say it was lately, and radar coverage hasn't got
> >> anything to do with it anyway...
> >> Oh, and there are plenty of places with no radar!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > I'm on the east coast. My only SEL foray west was to PHX and back in
> > the A36. We had coverage the entire route, but stayed Victor airways
> > through the passes.
>
> Yeah, I did a lot of what I was talking about on the east coast but a long
> time ago. the 150 ferry was across the atlantic and th eneedle ball and
> airspeed stuff was just transiting small areas of cloud. not very bright,
> but when you're young...
>
> Bertie

A 150 across the Atlantic?

How many tons overgross were you with fuel??

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 1, 4:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote
>> innews:7b70644e-c8a2-44fc-bb9b-

>> m:
>>
>> > On Mar 1, 3:13 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Not too many places left outside of radar coverage, these days.
>>
>> >> Well, i didn't say it was lately, and radar coverage hasn't got
>> >> anything to do with it anyway...
>> >> Oh, and there are plenty of places with no radar!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > I'm on the east coast. My only SEL foray west was to PHX and back
>> > in the A36. We had coverage the entire route, but stayed Victor
>> > airways through the passes.
>>
>> Yeah, I did a lot of what I was talking about on the east coast but a
>> long time ago. the 150 ferry was across the atlantic and th eneedle
>> ball and airspeed stuff was just transiting small areas of cloud. not
>> very bright, but when you're young...
>>
>> Bertie
>
> A 150 across the Atlantic?

Yeah, just once.
>
> How many tons overgross were you with fuel??

Well, I think it carried about ten or eleven hours of fuel. Actually, it
was a 152, so say about 6 gph so I must have had about 35 or 40 gallons
extra inside ( it was split bewen two tanks, one in the baggage area and
one in the right weat, the right stick was removed) so about 65 gal, so
about 400 lb lf fuel in round numbers plus about 170 lbs of pilot
shouldn't have put me too far over. I've been well over ferrying,
though. Over 20% IIRC. ( and yes Larry, it was legal and I wouldn't have
cared if it wasn't)
Had to route Goose Narsarsuaq Rekjavik in that airplane, but I knew one
guy who did Gander-Shannon in a 150 which is over 18 hours of flying,
normally. but he relied on tailwinds and his loran to do it direct.

Bertie


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > How many tons overgross were you with fuel??
>
> Well, I think it carried about ten or eleven hours of fuel. Actually, it
> was a 152, so say about 6 gph so I must have had about 35 or 40 gallons
> extra inside ( it was split bewen two tanks, one in the baggage area and
> one in the right weat, the right stick was removed) so about 65 gal, so
> about 400 lb lf fuel in round numbers plus about 170 lbs of pilot
> shouldn't have put me too far over. I've been well over ferrying,
> though. Over 20% IIRC. ( and yes Larry, it was legal and I wouldn't have
> cared if it wasn't)
> Had to route Goose Narsarsuaq Rekjavik in that airplane, but I knew one
> guy who did Gander-Shannon in a 150 which is over 18 hours of flying,
> normally. but he relied on tailwinds and his loran to do it direct.
>
> Bertie
>
> Bertie


It's been awhile since I've flown a 152, but IIRC it is overgross full
tanks and two 190 lb occupants.

So westbound, you were pulling what, 130 KTAS?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:a0fbde70-495f-
:

> On Mar 1, 9:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > How many tons overgross were you with fuel??
>>
>> Well, I think it carried about ten or eleven hours of fuel. Actually,
it
>> was a 152, so say about 6 gph so I must have had about 35 or 40
gallons
>> extra inside ( it was split bewen two tanks, one in the baggage area
and
>> one in the right weat, the right stick was removed) so about 65 gal,
so
>> about 400 lb lf fuel in round numbers plus about 170 lbs of pilot
>> shouldn't have put me too far over. I've been well over ferrying,
>> though. Over 20% IIRC. ( and yes Larry, it was legal and I wouldn't
have
>> cared if it wasn't)
>> Had to route Goose Narsarsuaq Rekjavik in that airplane, but I knew
one
>> guy who did Gander-Shannon in a 150 which is over 18 hours of
flying,
>> normally. but he relied on tailwinds and his loran to do it direct.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> It's been awhile since I've flown a 152, but IIRC it is overgross full
> tanks and two 190 lb occupants.
>

You don't worry too much about being over gross. The waiver for the
ferry dispenses you from such concerns in any case. Anything up to 30%
over gross is allowed, according to type.

> So westbound, you were pulling what, 130 KTAS?


Westbound? Nope. all eastbound. Well, in the 152 anyway.


And 130 knots?
What kind of 152 did you fly? !!!

Prolly about 95 knots, tops. The winds up in that part of the world are
variable and not too predictable.Over 100 knots form any direction is
possbile. Forecasting and reporting is much better these days, though,
and of course you can see it on your magic box, whatever that might be,
wheras I just used ADFs and whatever other tricks might have been at
hand.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 10:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Westbound? Nope. all eastbound. Well, in the 152 anyway.
>
> And 130 knots?
> What kind of 152 did you fly? !!!
>
> Prolly about 95 knots, tops. The winds up in that part of the world are
> variable and not too predictable.Over 100 knots form any direction is
> possbile. Forecasting and reporting is much better these days, though,
> and of course you can see it on your magic box, whatever that might be,
> wheras I just used ADFs and whatever other tricks might have been at
> hand.
>
> Bertie

A Super Duper 152 with a 40 Knot tailwind..

Yikes..that's a lotta time over open water. Did you have room/weight
allowance for all the survival stuff?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:f687133e-7e84-
:

> On Mar 2, 10:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Westbound? Nope. all eastbound. Well, in the 152 anyway.
>>
>> And 130 knots?
>> What kind of 152 did you fly? !!!
>>
>> Prolly about 95 knots, tops. The winds up in that part of the world
are
>> variable and not too predictable.Over 100 knots form any direction is
>> possbile. Forecasting and reporting is much better these days,
though,
>> and of course you can see it on your magic box, whatever that might
be,
>> wheras I just used ADFs and whatever other tricks might have been at
>> hand.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> A Super Duper 152 with a 40 Knot tailwind..

Oh, OK. Well, I don't think I had much wind at all on that trip except a
fairly heavy x-wind between Narsaruaq and Rekjavik. Very high winds
landing in Rekjavik as well. about 60 knots, in fact. Getting to the
ramp from the runway was impssible, so I took off again and flew it to
the ramp and taxiied into wind until I got to the shelter of a large
hangar.
>
> Yikes..that's a lotta time over open water. Did you have room/weight
> allowance for all the survival stuff?


Like I said, the weight just didn't enter into any kind of
consideration. Performance was not an issue since all runways were
extremely long and the temps, even in summer would have been low. i had
no problem getting to FL110, which was MEA over some of the route. It
had a temporary HF and ADF installed, I had my dry suit and survival
gear and my backpack, so yeah. it had room and sufficinet allowance for
all that. IIRC, most all Cessnas were allowed 30% anyway. I've flown
some airplanes that carried 120 gallons or more of aux fuel and they
were all legal and able for it.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 2:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:f687133e-7e84-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 10:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> >> Westbound? Nope. all eastbound. Well, in the 152 anyway.
>
> >> And 130 knots?
> >> What kind of 152 did you fly? !!!
>
> >> Prolly about 95 knots, tops. The winds up in that part of the world
> are
> >> variable and not too predictable.Over 100 knots form any direction is
> >> possbile. Forecasting and reporting is much better these days,
> though,
> >> and of course you can see it on your magic box, whatever that might
> be,
> >> wheras I just used ADFs and whatever other tricks might have been at
> >> hand.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > A Super Duper 152 with a 40 Knot tailwind..
>
> Oh, OK. Well, I don't think I had much wind at all on that trip except a
> fairly heavy x-wind between Narsaruaq and Rekjavik. Very high winds
> landing in Rekjavik as well. about 60 knots, in fact. Getting to the
> ramp from the runway was impssible, so I took off again and flew it to
> the ramp and taxiied into wind until I got to the shelter of a large
> hangar.
>
>
>
> > Yikes..that's a lotta time over open water. Did you have room/weight
> > allowance for all the survival stuff?
>
> Like I said, the weight just didn't enter into any kind of
> consideration. Performance was not an issue since all runways were
> extremely long and the temps, even in summer would have been low. i had
> no problem getting to FL110, which was MEA over some of the route. It
> had a temporary HF and ADF installed, I had my dry suit and survival
> gear and my backpack, so yeah. it had room and sufficinet allowance for
> all that. IIRC, most all Cessnas were allowed 30% anyway. I've flown
> some airplanes that carried 120 gallons or more of aux fuel and they
> were all legal and able for it.
>
> Bertie

I've clawed my way to 10,500 in a 152, but it takes a while...

On another topic, I finally received a reply from our Nigerian
friends:

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM, PROF CHALSE SOLUDO
> wrote:

So I will be expecting your response as to what is to be done,if
you did not then send me an email stating that you wish to claim your
fund yourself and also with these required informations:

1.YOUR FULL NAME AND DIRECT CONTACT ADDRESS.
2.YOUR MARITAL STATUS.
3.YOUR OCCUPATION.
4.YOUR PHONE NUMBER FOR EASY COMMUNICATION

All these informations will enhance the release of your funds to
you so get back to now.


PROF:CHALES SOLUDO
GOVERNOR-CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
DIRECT TEL: +234-8028816687

My reply:

For your to me be speaking, please enclose as attachment, photographic
evidence of thine existence.

Sincerely,
Most Royal Highness
Me

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

" > wrote in news:3a78fc42-01ae-46f3-
:

> On Mar 2, 2:19 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> " > wrote in news:f687133e-7e84-
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 2, 10:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> >> Westbound? Nope. all eastbound. Well, in the 152 anyway.
>>
>> >> And 130 knots?
>> >> What kind of 152 did you fly? !!!
>>
>> >> Prolly about 95 knots, tops. The winds up in that part of the world
>> are
>> >> variable and not too predictable.Over 100 knots form any direction is
>> >> possbile. Forecasting and reporting is much better these days,
>> though,
>> >> and of course you can see it on your magic box, whatever that might
>> be,
>> >> wheras I just used ADFs and whatever other tricks might have been at
>> >> hand.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > A Super Duper 152 with a 40 Knot tailwind..
>>
>> Oh, OK. Well, I don't think I had much wind at all on that trip except a
>> fairly heavy x-wind between Narsaruaq and Rekjavik. Very high winds
>> landing in Rekjavik as well. about 60 knots, in fact. Getting to the
>> ramp from the runway was impssible, so I took off again and flew it to
>> the ramp and taxiied into wind until I got to the shelter of a large
>> hangar.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Yikes..that's a lotta time over open water. Did you have room/weight
>> > allowance for all the survival stuff?
>>
>> Like I said, the weight just didn't enter into any kind of
>> consideration. Performance was not an issue since all runways were
>> extremely long and the temps, even in summer would have been low. i had
>> no problem getting to FL110, which was MEA over some of the route. It
>> had a temporary HF and ADF installed, I had my dry suit and survival
>> gear and my backpack, so yeah. it had room and sufficinet allowance for
>> all that. IIRC, most all Cessnas were allowed 30% anyway. I've flown
>> some airplanes that carried 120 gallons or more of aux fuel and they
>> were all legal and able for it.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I've clawed my way to 10,500 in a 152, but it takes a while...

Yeah, I remember doing it in a 150 just for the hell of it when I was a
student, and taking ages just to get back down again! It's easier when the
OAT is about -40. There's nochoice, though, since the icepack itself is
(was) about 4,000 asl and the surrounding mountains a bit over 8,000 in
spots, IIRC.

>
> On another topic, I finally received a reply from our Nigerian
> friends:
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM, PROF CHALSE SOLUDO
> > wrote:
>
> So I will be expecting your response as to what is to be done,if
> you did not then send me an email stating that you wish to claim your
> fund yourself and also with these required informations:
>
> 1.YOUR FULL NAME AND DIRECT CONTACT ADDRESS.
> 2.YOUR MARITAL STATUS.
> 3.YOUR OCCUPATION.
> 4.YOUR PHONE NUMBER FOR EASY COMMUNICATION
>
> All these informations will enhance the release of your funds to
> you so get back to now.
>
>
> PROF:CHALES SOLUDO
> GOVERNOR-CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
> DIRECT TEL: +234-8028816687
>
> My reply:
>
> For your to me be speaking, please enclose as attachment, photographic
> evidence of thine existence.
>
> Sincerely,
> Most Royal Highness
> Me

Bwawahwhhahwhahwhahwh! If he doesn't spit the hook with that you have a
gem..



Bertie
>