Chad Irby is a Liar

[robert arndt]

The facts:

I have approx. 1,230 posts logged in the Google archive.
Of these only 804 are displayed.
Chad claims the MAJORITY of my posts are German-related.
Here is an accurate hand-counted tally for 600 posts (there was no
need to go to the full 804 because you will see why in the numbers)

Group 100:
Other NG:3
Tl=97
German: 44
Tl= 53 other

Group 200:
Other NG: 10
Tl=90
German: 38
Tl= 52

Group 300:
Other NG: 1
Tl=99
German: 27
Tl= 72 other

Group 400:
Other NG: 0
Tl=100
German: 16
Tl= 84 other

Group 500:
Other NG: 0
Tl=100
German: 17
Tl= 83 other

Group 600:
Other NG: 40
Tl= 60
German: 13
Tl= 47 other


Grand Total for 600 posts:
Other NG: 54
Tl= 546
German: 155
Tl= 391 other

In other words just 28% of 600 posts are German-related. That's not
batting .500 Chad.
There is no need to research the other 204 posts because I was
involved more heavily in two other NGs at that time period as
evidenced by the 94 other NG posts out of the last 200 in groups 5 &
6.
Basically Chad is a liar and I resent his misrepresentation of me on
this NG.

Rob

p.s. For all those people who find my posts informative; to those whom
I've helped do research for; to those that like German AND foreign
equipment OT or not, I will continue to post as I always have. For
those who think I am some rabid neo-nazi fanatic please look at the
entire record. The pics of US aircraft alone I have posted is more
than any of the German content combined.
And I have not forgotten the UK, France, Sweden, Belgium, Italy,
Russia, Japan, Israel, South Africa, etc...

[Tarver Engineering]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> The facts:

Don't worry about Irby.

[Mycroft]

Don't take things so personally, life is too short to worry what strangers
think.

Myc

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> The facts:
>
> I have approx. 1,230 posts logged in the Google archive.
> Of these only 804 are displayed.
> Chad claims the MAJORITY of my posts are German-related.
> Here is an accurate hand-counted tally for 600 posts (there was no
> need to go to the full 804 because you will see why in the numbers)
>
> Group 100:
> Other NG:3
> Tl=97
> German: 44
> Tl= 53 other
>
> Group 200:
> Other NG: 10
> Tl=90
> German: 38
> Tl= 52
>
> Group 300:
> Other NG: 1
> Tl=99
> German: 27
> Tl= 72 other
>
> Group 400:
> Other NG: 0
> Tl=100
> German: 16
> Tl= 84 other
>
> Group 500:
> Other NG: 0
> Tl=100
> German: 17
> Tl= 83 other
>
> Group 600:
> Other NG: 40
> Tl= 60
> German: 13
> Tl= 47 other
>
>
> Grand Total for 600 posts:
> Other NG: 54
> Tl= 546
> German: 155
> Tl= 391 other
>
> In other words just 28% of 600 posts are German-related. That's not
> batting .500 Chad.
> There is no need to research the other 204 posts because I was
> involved more heavily in two other NGs at that time period as
> evidenced by the 94 other NG posts out of the last 200 in groups 5 &
> 6.
> Basically Chad is a liar and I resent his misrepresentation of me on
> this NG.
>
> Rob
>
> p.s. For all those people who find my posts informative; to those whom
> I've helped do research for; to those that like German AND foreign
> equipment OT or not, I will continue to post as I always have. For
> those who think I am some rabid neo-nazi fanatic please look at the
> entire record. The pics of US aircraft alone I have posted is more
> than any of the German content combined.
> And I have not forgotten the UK, France, Sweden, Belgium, Italy,
> Russia, Japan, Israel, South Africa, etc...

[John Mullen]

robert arndt wrote:

(snip)

Relax Robert. Your posts are sometimes interesting and often relate to
military aviation. Your views are eccentric but amusing.

Cut Chad some slack, it must be hard to justify some of the things he
has to. Killfile him if he bothers you.

HTH

John

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

> The facts:

Only according to you.

>
> I have approx. 1,230 posts logged in the Google archive.

<snip>

> In other words just 28% of 600 posts are German-related.

<snip>

Actually, use of advanced Google search with *some* basic German-related
keywords ("includes any of the following") to screen those 1230 posts of
Arndt's resulted in 369 "hits". That is a 30% correlation, *not* 28%, and
it is not a complete result--how many more of his posts were including
German-related topics can only be determined by further individual post
screening.

> Basically Chad is a liar and I resent his misrepresentation of me on
> this NG.

You have yet to prove conclusively that his assertion is incorrect--your own
28% figure is obviously flawed, to your advantage of course, based upon only
basic review.

>
> Rob
>
> p.s. For all those people who find my posts informative; to those whom
> I've helped do research for; to those that like German AND foreign
> equipment OT or not, I will continue to post as I always have. For
> those who think I am some rabid neo-nazi fanatic please look at the
> entire record. The pics of US aircraft alone I have posted is more
> than any of the German content combined.
> And I have not forgotten the UK, France, Sweden, Belgium, Italy,
> Russia, Japan, Israel, South Africa, etc...

None of which lessens your tendancy to indeed expand upon any and
contrived/alleged German superiority of all manners.

Brooks

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> The facts:
>
> I have approx. 1,230 posts logged in the Google archive.
> Of these only 804 are displayed.

Actually, they *all* are displayed, you just don't know how to read
Google results. And that's why you got it wrong. Again.

For one things, all 804 posts *were* displayed, Google just displays one
subject line per thread.

> Chad claims the MAJORITY of my posts are German-related.

And they are.

> Here is an accurate hand-counted tally for 600 posts (there was no
> need to go to the full 804 because you will see why in the numbers)
>
> Group 100:
> Other NG:3
> Tl=97
> German: 44
> Tl= 53 other

Yep. You did just what I thought. You read *obvious* subject lines,
didn't actually look at the posts, and only counted one post per thread.

Learn how Google works, Arndt.

And even at that, you still managed to nearly break even.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
John Mullen > wrote:

> Cut Chad some slack, it must be hard to justify some of the things he
> has to.

Still ****ed about Iraq, eh, Mullen?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Mycroft"

>Don't take things so personally, life is too short to worry what strangers
>think.

Reminds me of Rasimus and his favorite John Stuart Mill quote, which he wields
like a purse to flail away at various more or less ill-chosen targets.
It's obvious he doesn't know the context of the quote, or that it is part of a
very well-known essay that political philosophers and students of political
philosophy are very familiar with, as it deals with the problems victory in war
may create.
Mill's essay was prompted by the US provoking Britain during the early days of
the US Civil War, leading to the real possibility of Britain declaring war on
the US. During the course of the essay Mill looks at Britain's situation as
the leading power of the day. Should it suffer US provocation without
retaliation, go to war and possibly be defeated or suffer an otherwise
unsatisfactory solution? Or win and--what? Mill looks at the huge problems a
victory over the US, with all the advantages to the slave-holding Confederacy
that would bring, would create for Britain.
The essay is famous because it draws attention to the fact that even a
victorious war can cause vast negative consequences, and those consequences
must be carefully thought out before embarking on war. Sometimes, Mill
suggests, it is better to avoid war because the consequences not of defeat, but
victory, can be hugely detrimental to your fundamental goals as a nation.
Sometimes it may even be better to use "rough men" you don't approve of
fighting for their own aims to facilitate your own rather than go to war
yourself.
Considering events in Iraq and what may develop in coming years, Mill's essay
has been on the front burner of those who are serious about these matters.
Rasimus is, of course, unaware of all of this and reveals that fact, as well as
his general unfamiliarity with Mill, every time he trots out his out-of-context
quote.
But that's Usenet. At first you think it's a great way to enjoy discussions
and debates with interesting people. But soon enough you discover only a few
people are worth taking seriously and that most posters, should you meet them
in real life, you would cross the street to avoid.
Nonetheless, it holds a fascination, like looking at a traffic accident. Who
are these people, like the moron who thinks that Gar Alperovitz writing about
the Hiroshima bombing is straying outside his area of expertise (that gave me a
belly laugh), or the moron waving his potted John Stuart Mill quote (another
belly laugh). They are a daily goon show and saturday night live combined.
Tune in to usenet when you want a good laugh but don't take it seriously.
Although, once in a while you do meet a sane, knowledgeable person who has
stumbled by accident into the lunatic asylum. but don't expect that.


Chris Mark

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Mycroft"
>
> >Don't take things so personally, life is too short to worry what
strangers
> >think.
>
> Reminds me of Rasimus and his favorite John Stuart Mill quote, which he
wields
> like a purse to flail away at various more or less ill-chosen targets.
> It's obvious he doesn't know the context of the quote, or that it is part
of a
> very well-known essay that political philosophers and students of
political
> philosophy are very familiar with, as it deals with the problems victory
in war
> may create.
> Mill's essay was prompted by the US provoking Britain during the early
days of
> the US Civil War, leading to the real possibility of Britain declaring war
on
> the US. During the course of the essay Mill looks at Britain's situation
as
> the leading power of the day. Should it suffer US provocation without
> retaliation, go to war and possibly be defeated or suffer an otherwise
> unsatisfactory solution?

The War of 1812 had brought near total victory for thr Brits (except perhaps
the shallow water cannon battles in SC), but the retreat down the
Mississippi in 1815 had left many men on the street corners of London, with
missing limbs. Another expensive war with these United States was not
something the UK would take lightly and there were still people alive who
remembered those scairy men.

> Or win and--what? Mill looks at the huge problems a
> victory over the US, with all the advantages to the slave-holding
Confederacy
> that would bring, would create for Britain.

Or perhaps the certain bitter taste of political defeat at home, once again.

> The essay is famous because it draws attention to the fact that even a
> victorious war can cause vast negative consequences, and those
consequences
> must be carefully thought out before embarking on war. Sometimes, Mill
> suggests, it is better to avoid war because the consequences not of
defeat, but
> victory, can be hugely detrimental to your fundamental goals as a nation.
> Sometimes it may even be better to use "rough men" you don't approve of
> fighting for their own aims to facilitate your own rather than go to war
> yourself.

Allways.

> Considering events in Iraq and what may develop in coming years, Mill's
essay
> has been on the front burner of those who are serious about these matters.
> Rasimus is, of course, unaware of all of this and reveals that fact, as
well as
> his general unfamiliarity with Mill, every time he trots out his
out-of-context quote.

Perhaps there is some irony related to the war Rasimus' generation didn't
win,that you have missed?

> But that's Usenet. At first you think it's a great way to enjoy
discussions
> and debates with interesting people. But soon enough you discover only a
few
> people are worth taking seriously and that most posters, should you meet
them
> in real life, you would cross the street to avoid.
> Nonetheless, it holds a fascination, like looking at a traffic accident.
Who
> are these people, like the moron who thinks that Gar Alperovitz writing
about
> the Hiroshima bombing is straying outside his area of expertise (that gave
me a
> belly laugh), or the moron waving his potted John Stuart Mill quote
(another
> belly laugh). They are a daily goon show and saturday night live
combined.
> Tune in to usenet when you want a good laugh but don't take it seriously.
> Although, once in a while you do meet a sane, knowledgeable person who has
> stumbled by accident into the lunatic asylum. but don't expect that.

Shafer compared the discussion to a bar and that is about the level of
bull****.

[John Mullen]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> John Mullen > wrote:
>
>
>>Cut Chad some slack, it must be hard to justify some of the things he
>>has to.
>
>
> Still ****ed about Iraq, eh, Mullen?
>

No. Thought you might be though Chadwick.

John

[robert arndt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > The facts:
>
> Only according to you.
>
> >
> > I have approx. 1,230 posts logged in the Google archive.
>
> <snip>
>
> > In other words just 28% of 600 posts are German-related.
>
> <snip>
>
> Actually, use of advanced Google search with *some* basic German-related
> keywords ("includes any of the following") to screen those 1230 posts of
> Arndt's resulted in 369 "hits". That is a 30% correlation, *not* 28%, and
> it is not a complete result--how many more of his posts were including
> German-related topics can only be determined by further individual post
> screening.
>
> > Basically Chad is a liar and I resent his misrepresentation of me on
> > this NG.
>
> You have yet to prove conclusively that his assertion is incorrect--your own
> 28% figure is obviously flawed, to your advantage of course, based upon only
> basic review.
>
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > p.s. For all those people who find my posts informative; to those whom
> > I've helped do research for; to those that like German AND foreign
> > equipment OT or not, I will continue to post as I always have. For
> > those who think I am some rabid neo-nazi fanatic please look at the
> > entire record. The pics of US aircraft alone I have posted is more
> > than any of the German content combined.
> > And I have not forgotten the UK, France, Sweden, Belgium, Italy,
> > Russia, Japan, Israel, South Africa, etc...
>
> None of which lessens your tendancy to indeed expand upon any and
> contrived/alleged German superiority of all manners.
>
> Brooks

Brooks, you cannot count any mention of international programs like
Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M, where the word German appears. Chad's
argument is about all my RAM posts beignabout German tech and
Nazi/German superiority. I can assure you those posts are rare and a
lot of it has to do with people who know nothing about the
achievements of German aviation from gliders-to Zeppelins-to
airliners-jets, rockets, etc... Those people always irritate me to no
end I end up laying it thick on the Third Reich stuff. Sorry. As for
new developments, everyone here has added something, usually OT, to
discuss. Ask Tex, the RAM non-aviation content monitor, how many posts
are about small arms, AFVs, ships, airliners, and spacecraft.
I just want to add what I can for this NG. Many of my posts helped
identify aircraft and parts. Others helped people find certain
aviation-related items or sites. Other just provided photographic
proof of rare German aircraft and tech. So why all the fuss?
I get tired on people using the Nazi term on me. I love history and
can equally go on about the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Medes,
Persians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Vikings, Huns, Mongels, Turks, etc...
but this is RAM and I guess I gotta answer those questions that deal
with German aircraft and tech. You can't say that all of it is a
waste. I'm sure many here never knew at least 50 German aircraft of
the Reich that I referred to or supplied photographic proof of. I love
black projects, little known facts, rare and unique aircraft, etc...
You would think by now that the regulars would ease up...

Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> Brooks, you cannot count any mention of international programs like
> Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M, where the word German appears. Chad's
> argument is about all my RAM posts beignabout German tech and
> Nazi/German superiority.

Except for that word "all," which I never claimed, of course, just
"most," which we've fairly well established.

> I can assure you those posts are rare

*BZZZZT* Well, thanks for playing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > > The facts:
> >
> > Only according to you.
> >
> > >
> > > I have approx. 1,230 posts logged in the Google archive.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > In other words just 28% of 600 posts are German-related.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Actually, use of advanced Google search with *some* basic German-related
> > keywords ("includes any of the following") to screen those 1230 posts of
> > Arndt's resulted in 369 "hits". That is a 30% correlation, *not* 28%,
and
> > it is not a complete result--how many more of his posts were including
> > German-related topics can only be determined by further individual post
> > screening.
> >
> > > Basically Chad is a liar and I resent his misrepresentation of me on
> > > this NG.
> >
> > You have yet to prove conclusively that his assertion is incorrect--your
own
> > 28% figure is obviously flawed, to your advantage of course, based upon
only
> > basic review.
> >
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > p.s. For all those people who find my posts informative; to those whom
> > > I've helped do research for; to those that like German AND foreign
> > > equipment OT or not, I will continue to post as I always have. For
> > > those who think I am some rabid neo-nazi fanatic please look at the
> > > entire record. The pics of US aircraft alone I have posted is more
> > > than any of the German content combined.
> > > And I have not forgotten the UK, France, Sweden, Belgium, Italy,
> > > Russia, Japan, Israel, South Africa, etc...
> >
> > None of which lessens your tendancy to indeed expand upon any and
> > contrived/alleged German superiority of all manners.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Brooks, you cannot count any mention of international programs like
> Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M, where the word German appears. Chad's
> argument is about all my RAM posts beignabout German tech and
> Nazi/German superiority. I can assure you those posts are rare

Rare? I have read three posts from you today, and ALL have dealt with German
equipment--at least one was another "Germans did it better" crap post. You
are not exactly making your case too well here.

Brooks

<snip>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Mycroft"
>
> >Don't take things so personally, life is too short to worry what
strangers
> >think.
>
> Reminds me of Rasimus and his favorite John Stuart Mill quote, which he
wields
> like a purse to flail away at various more or less ill-chosen targets.
> It's obvious he doesn't know the context of the quote, or that it is part
of a
> very well-known essay that political philosophers and students of
political
> philosophy are very familiar with, as it deals with the problems victory
in war
> may create.
> Mill's essay was prompted by the US provoking Britain during the early
days of
> the US Civil War, leading to the real possibility of Britain declaring war
on
> the US. During the course of the essay Mill looks at Britain's situation
as
> the leading power of the day. Should it suffer US provocation without
> retaliation, go to war and possibly be defeated or suffer an otherwise
> unsatisfactory solution? Or win and--what? Mill looks at the huge
problems a
> victory over the US, with all the advantages to the slave-holding
Confederacy
> that would bring, would create for Britain.
> The essay is famous because it draws attention to the fact that even a
> victorious war can cause vast negative consequences, and those
consequences
> must be carefully thought out before embarking on war. Sometimes, Mill
> suggests, it is better to avoid war because the consequences not of
defeat, but
> victory, can be hugely detrimental to your fundamental goals as a nation.
> Sometimes it may even be better to use "rough men" you don't approve of
> fighting for their own aims to facilitate your own rather than go to war
> yourself.
> Considering events in Iraq and what may develop in coming years, Mill's
essay
> has been on the front burner of those who are serious about these matters.
> Rasimus is, of course, unaware of all of this and reveals that fact, as
well as
> his general unfamiliarity with Mill, every time he trots out his
out-of-context
> quote.
> But that's Usenet. At first you think it's a great way to enjoy
discussions
> and debates with interesting people. But soon enough you discover only a
few
> people are worth taking seriously and that most posters, should you meet
them
> in real life, you would cross the street to avoid.
> Nonetheless, it holds a fascination, like looking at a traffic accident.
Who
> are these people, like the moron who thinks that Gar Alperovitz writing
about
> the Hiroshima bombing is straying outside his area of expertise (that gave
me a
> belly laugh), or the moron waving his potted John Stuart Mill quote
(another
> belly laugh). They are a daily goon show and saturday night live
combined.
> Tune in to usenet when you want a good laugh but don't take it seriously.
> Although, once in a while you do meet a sane, knowledgeable person who has
> stumbled by accident into the lunatic asylum. but don't expect that.

All that wasted verbage, and you had nothing to say? Who gives a rat's ass
what the impetus behind Mill's essay was--the wording still holds water. I
guess you would also claim that the ten commandments are of little value
since they were handed down to Moses because of a particular situation
confronting the Israelites as they decamped from Egypt? Chris, I don't know
who the hell you were trying to impress with this little sideshow attack on
Ed, but you sure as heck did not acheive much, other than pointing out that
you are a windbag of the first order.

Brooks

>
>
> Chris Mark

[[email protected]]

>I don't know
>who the hell you were trying to impress with this little sideshow attack on
>Ed, but you sure as heck did not acheive much, other than pointing out that
>you are a windbag of the first order.
>

>

Jesus God...*TWO* OF THEM NOW?!? <groan>
--

-Gord.

[robert arndt]

> >
> > Brooks, you cannot count any mention of international programs like
> > Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M, where the word German appears. Chad's
> > argument is about all my RAM posts beignabout German tech and
> > Nazi/German superiority. I can assure you those posts are rare
>
> Rare? I have read three posts from you today, and ALL have dealt with German
> equipment--at least one was another "Germans did it better" crap post. You
> are not exactly making your case too well here.
>
> Brooks

Actually I posted 4 yesterday. Recap:

1) Global Flyer: non-German, general aviation
2) HG II Pic: Artwork for those interested in what the plane might
have looked like in flight since no photo has been found of HG II so
far, a further addition to the previous HG thread
3) Me-262A-1a/U-3: rare recon Me-262 pic but got wrong link, corrected
today
No comment of superiority, just a rare bird pic
4) HK CAWS: As stated earlier I have a right to address any attack
made against me. Ariennya said the Germans couldn't make shotguns and
I proved her wrong. And in that case the HK CAWS was at the time the
world's best autoshotgun. Today many would argue that it is the
Italian SPAS-15. I do not disagree.

Can you please tell how me posting on German aviation is a crime since
this is an aviation NG. You don't complain about the USA-NUMBER-ONE
fanatics who blatantly disregard everyone else's aeronautical
achievements, forgetting that a large part of the good ole USA is
ethnically German- actually THE ethnic majority since 1990... and that
their contribution to US aviation and arms tech is unavoidable and
inseperable.
Bet you hate that :)

Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> > >
> > > Brooks, you cannot count any mention of international programs like
> > > Airbus, Eurofighter, A400M, where the word German appears. Chad's
> > > argument is about all my RAM posts beignabout German tech and
> > > Nazi/German superiority. I can assure you those posts are rare
> >
> > Rare? I have read three posts from you today, and ALL have dealt with
German
> > equipment--at least one was another "Germans did it better" crap post.
You
> > are not exactly making your case too well here.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Actually I posted 4 yesterday. Recap:
>
> 1) Global Flyer: non-German, general aviation
> 2) HG II Pic: Artwork for those interested in what the plane might
> have looked like in flight since no photo has been found of HG II so
> far, a further addition to the previous HG thread
> 3) Me-262A-1a/U-3: rare recon Me-262 pic but got wrong link, corrected
> today
> No comment of superiority, just a rare bird pic
> 4) HK CAWS: As stated earlier I have a right to address any attack
> made against me. Ariennya said the Germans couldn't make shotguns and
> I proved her wrong. And in that case the HK CAWS was at the time the
> world's best autoshotgun. Today many would argue that it is the
> Italian SPAS-15. I do not disagree.
>
> Can you please tell how me posting on German aviation is a crime since
> this is an aviation NG. You don't complain about the USA-NUMBER-ONE
> fanatics who blatantly disregard everyone else's aeronautical
> achievements, forgetting that a large part of the good ole USA is
> ethnically German- actually THE ethnic majority since 1990... and that
> their contribution to US aviation and arms tech is unavoidable and
> inseperable.
> Bet you hate that :)

\
Where the HECK do you get the idea that the majority US ethnic group is
GERMAN? What have you been smoking? You have grossly misinterpreted the US
census data--read the fine print there, Robert. First, it is not a
"majority", and second, it includes all manner of mixes (for example even I
listed German as ONE of my contributing ancestry sources--from among MANY).
That is why your German-stuff-is-always-superior crap is so tasteless--you
base your half-baked assertions on tenuous, or in this case stretched,
source info at best. Last year you were promising us a "new" German battle
tank--where is this curious weapon (in reality the Bundeswehr is trying to
preserve what strength it has remaining, is interested (like the rest of the
western world) in finding lighter vehicles to replace its older heavier
armor systems, and finally lacks the R&D budget to even attempt, had they
wanted to, the development of a new MBT)? You have often pointed to some
allegedly secret, yet flying and maybe even operational, German stealth
aircraft--where is that one? Have you bothered to READ about how cash
strapped the German military procurement and development budgets actually
are? You live in some kind of strange dreamland, Robert--come join us back
in the real world.

Brooks

>
> Rob

[robert arndt]

> Where the HECK do you get the idea that the majority US ethnic group is
> GERMAN? What have you been smoking?

According to the 1990 US Census the German-American ethnic group was
number 1:

http://home.att.net/~wee-monster/1990.html

In the 2000 US Census, major sub-categories for caucasians was
dropped. According to various statistical sources there were approx.
65 million Germans in the US in 2003 making them the number 1 ethnic
majority group for a second decade now, surpassing both the Irish and
British Americans.

You have grossly misinterpreted the US
> census data--read the fine print there, Robert. First, it is not a
> "majority", and second, it includes all manner of mixes (for example even I
> listed German as ONE of my contributing ancestry sources--from among MANY).
> That is why your German-stuff-is-always-superior crap is so tasteless--you
> base your half-baked assertions on tenuous, or in this case stretched,
> source info at best.

The 2000 Census criteria changed, I didn't misinterpret it at all.

Last year you were promising us a "new" German battle
> tank--where is this curious weapon (in reality the Bundeswehr is trying to
> preserve what strength it has remaining, is interested (like the rest of the
> western world) in finding lighter vehicles to replace its older heavier
> armor systems, and finally lacks the R&D budget to even attempt, had they
> wanted to, the development of a new MBT)?

To what specific post are you referring to? The Heer has already
tested a Leopard II with 140mm main gun. DB was experimenting with a
50 ton wheeled tank which can be seen in the Concord Book "German
Wheeled Fighting Vehicles" Series #7504 pg 48. That vehicle has been
tested since 1995. On the "Flecktarn" online site you can see the RjPz
Panther crane tank which is also testing. Then there is the fully
tracked EGS tank trials vehicle by KMW seen in "New Vanguard 24:
Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-1998" pg 47. Finally there is the EGS
architecture applied to the Leopard III design in RAIDS SPECIAL No.5
"Les Chars en Action" pgs 81-82. You may also remember that the new
IFV that was named Igel (Hedgehog) has now been redesignated Puma and
is on track. That doesn't in any way interfere with the KMW submission
for the Euro-wheeled family of AFVs- the MRAV. And then there is the
ultra-futuristic Kpz Lowe in the design stage.
So what are YOU talking about?

You have often pointed to some
> allegedly secret, yet flying and maybe even operational, German stealth
> aircraft--where is that one? Have you bothered to READ about how cash
> strapped the German military procurement and development budgets actually
> are? You live in some kind of strange dreamland, Robert--come join us back
> in the real world.

Well, that's why since reunification the Germans have replaced nearly
all of their small arms, improved the Leopard II to world's finest MBT
in the A5/6 models, introduced the PzH 2000 SPG- also the world's
finest, the Fenneck, the Dingo, introduced IDZ supersoldier gear into
the Balkans in 2002, created KSK special forces (rated up there with
SAS- from scratch), are getting the Eurotiger and EC-635 helos,
produced bio-engineered anthrax under the Heer's research program and
sold some to the US in 2000/1, and contributed 13,000 troops to
operations outside Germany. They will introduce the Taifun UCAV next
year too. Meanwhile EADS is trying to get their Eurofighters, produce
the Mako for light strike and export sales, participate in the A400M
program, work on the stealth cruise misile and anti-stealth hardware
and convert Airbus 310s into tankers and cargo carriers. Other missile
programs are IRIS-T and Taurus S/O weapon. The German Navy is trying
to get new stealth frigates, AIP SSK submarines, develop UUCVs, etc...
Seems like a lot of projects for a nation with only 40 billion a year
on defense compared to 400 billion by the US. I think they will
accomplish more with less money until the EU unifies and the defense
pot is merged.

As for the Firefly II stealth aircraft, two were seen over the
Overberg test range in the RSA years ago. The RSA allows Germany to
test secret weapons there like they did off their coast with the
German subs provided to Israel. Germany modified their launch tubes to
fire the Popeye Turbo cruise missile and they tested it at sea off the
RSA. German technicians were onboard. So I am not living in a fantasy
world. You OTOH are in denial.

Rob
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> > Where the HECK do you get the idea that the majority US ethnic group is
> > GERMAN? What have you been smoking?
>
> According to the 1990 US Census the German-American ethnic group was
> number 1:
>
> http://home.att.net/~wee-monster/1990.html
>
> In the 2000 US Census, major sub-categories for caucasians was
> dropped. According to various statistical sources there were approx.
> 65 million Germans in the US in 2003 making them the number 1 ethnic
> majority group for a second decade now, surpassing both the Irish and
> British Americans.
>
> You have grossly misinterpreted the US
> > census data--read the fine print there, Robert. First, it is not a
> > "majority", and second, it includes all manner of mixes (for example
even I
> > listed German as ONE of my contributing ancestry sources--from among
MANY).
> > That is why your German-stuff-is-always-superior crap is so
tasteless--you
> > base your half-baked assertions on tenuous, or in this case stretched,
> > source info at best.
>
> The 2000 Census criteria changed, I didn't misinterpret it at all.

You need to learn to read. Look up the definition of "majority"--your
numbers do not add up to 51% or more of the US population. And again, before
you go spouting off this crap, read how the census determined that
figure--read especially about first, second, and total ancestry, then come
back and tell me, one of the folks who listed German as ONE of my ancestry
lines, just how that makes me "German American". Your lunacy is growing...

>
> Last year you were promising us a "new" German battle
> > tank--where is this curious weapon (in reality the Bundeswehr is trying
to
> > preserve what strength it has remaining, is interested (like the rest of
the
> > western world) in finding lighter vehicles to replace its older heavier
> > armor systems, and finally lacks the R&D budget to even attempt, had
they
> > wanted to, the development of a new MBT)?
>
> To what specific post are you referring to? The Heer has already
> tested a Leopard II with 140mm main gun. DB was experimenting with a
> 50 ton wheeled tank which can be seen in the Concord Book "German
> Wheeled Fighting Vehicles" Series #7504 pg 48. That vehicle has been
> tested since 1995. On the "Flecktarn" online site you can see the RjPz
> Panther crane tank which is also testing. Then there is the fully
> tracked EGS tank trials vehicle by KMW seen in "New Vanguard 24:
> Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-1998" pg 47. Finally there is the EGS
> architecture applied to the Leopard III design in RAIDS SPECIAL No.5
> "Les Chars en Action" pgs 81-82. You may also remember that the new
> IFV that was named Igel (Hedgehog) has now been redesignated Puma and
> is on track. That doesn't in any way interfere with the KMW submission
> for the Euro-wheeled family of AFVs- the MRAV. And then there is the
> ultra-futuristic Kpz Lowe in the design stage.
> So what are YOU talking about?

Where is the *new* tank you said the Wehrmacht was buying? H'mmm? Choose
one.

>
> You have often pointed to some
> > allegedly secret, yet flying and maybe even operational, German stealth
> > aircraft--where is that one? Have you bothered to READ about how cash
> > strapped the German military procurement and development budgets
actually
> > are? You live in some kind of strange dreamland, Robert--come join us
back
> > in the real world.
>
> Well, that's why since reunification the Germans have replaced nearly
> all of their small arms, improved the Leopard II to world's finest MBT
> in the A5/6 models, introduced the PzH 2000 SPG- also the world's
> finest, the Fenneck, the Dingo, introduced IDZ supersoldier gear into
> the Balkans in 2002, created KSK special forces (rated up there with
> SAS- from scratch), are getting the Eurotiger and EC-635 helos,
> produced bio-engineered anthrax under the Heer's research program and
> sold some to the US in 2000/1, and contributed 13,000 troops to
> operations outside Germany. They will introduce the Taifun UCAV next
> year too. Meanwhile EADS is trying to get their Eurofighters, produce
> the Mako for light strike and export sales, participate in the A400M
> program, work on the stealth cruise misile and anti-stealth hardware
> and convert Airbus 310s into tankers and cargo carriers. Other missile
> programs are IRIS-T and Taurus S/O weapon. The German Navy is trying
> to get new stealth frigates, AIP SSK submarines, develop UUCVs, etc...
> Seems like a lot of projects for a nation with only 40 billion a year
> on defense compared to 400 billion by the US. I think they will
> accomplish more with less money until the EU unifies and the defense
> pot is merged.
>
> As for the Firefly II stealth aircraft, two were seen over the
> Overberg test range in the RSA years ago. The RSA allows Germany to
> test secret weapons there like they did off their coast with the
> German subs provided to Israel. Germany modified their launch tubes to
> fire the Popeye Turbo cruise missile and they tested it at sea off the
> RSA. German technicians were onboard. So I am not living in a fantasy
> world. You OTOH are in denial.

So you have no actual evidence. That figures.

Brooks

>
> Rob
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > Rob

[tadaa]

> Where is the *new* tank you said the Wehrmacht was buying? H'mmm? Choose
> one.

They have Leopard 2 A5 and A6 upgrade kits (better armor, sensors and 120L55
gun), but no new tanks (they have enough of Leopard 2A4's lying around to
play with).

[robert arndt]

> > The 2000 Census criteria changed, I didn't misinterpret it at all.
>
> You need to learn to read. Look up the definition of "majority"--your
> numbers do not add up to 51% or more of the US population. And again, before
> you go spouting off this crap, read how the census determined that
> figure--read especially about first, second, and total ancestry, then come
> back and tell me, one of the folks who listed German as ONE of my ancestry
> lines, just how that makes me "German American". Your lunacy is growing...

Brooks according to the 2004 World Almanac the US population in
281,421,906 of which 211,460,626 are Caucasian. To simplify the math
let's just reduce the numbers to 281 mil and 211 mil respectively.
Whites make up the majority with around 75% of the total population.
Out of this 211 mil German-Americans number approx. 65 million, or 31%
of that total. That 31% in the white sub-category is greater than the
next two big ethnic sub-majorities of Irish and British Americans
making German-Americans the largest single ethnic majority under the
caucasian category. Minorities continue to have the option of being
counted as sub-categories but the Caucasian sub-categories are too
large to list anymore so they are all lumped together with the
pathetic "other" option box. I always list myself as German-American
because my parents were both German as were their parents stretching
back to the Fatherland. I am German by blood and that to me is more
important than national boundries. I could care less what ethnic
background you are but I am not mixed hence I have no problem listing
my background. Many other German-Americans feel the same and in the
1990 Census their number was #1 in the Caucasian sub-category group.
There is no lunacy about the numbers- there are 65 million people in
the US that claim German ethnic background. This puts them ahead of
any minority group and first among the white sub-groups. Fact.
>
> >
> > Last year you were promising us a "new" German battle
> > > tank--where is this curious weapon (in reality the Bundeswehr is trying
> to
> > > preserve what strength it has remaining, is interested (like the rest of
> the
> > > western world) in finding lighter vehicles to replace its older heavier
> > > armor systems, and finally lacks the R&D budget to even attempt, had
> they
> > > wanted to, the development of a new MBT)?
> >
> > To what specific post are you referring to? The Heer has already
> > tested a Leopard II with 140mm main gun. DB was experimenting with a
> > 50 ton wheeled tank which can be seen in the Concord Book "German
> > Wheeled Fighting Vehicles" Series #7504 pg 48. That vehicle has been
> > tested since 1995. On the "Flecktarn" online site you can see the RjPz
> > Panther crane tank which is also testing. Then there is the fully
> > tracked EGS tank trials vehicle by KMW seen in "New Vanguard 24:
> > Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-1998" pg 47. Finally there is the EGS
> > architecture applied to the Leopard III design in RAIDS SPECIAL No.5
> > "Les Chars en Action" pgs 81-82. You may also remember that the new
> > IFV that was named Igel (Hedgehog) has now been redesignated Puma and
> > is on track. That doesn't in any way interfere with the KMW submission
> > for the Euro-wheeled family of AFVs- the MRAV. And then there is the
> > ultra-futuristic Kpz Lowe in the design stage.
> > So what are YOU talking about?
>
> Where is the *new* tank you said the Wehrmacht was buying? H'mmm? Choose
> one.
>
Brooks, provide the thread. I think you are distorting what I said for
your own purpose of discrediting me. You are like the people who
actually believe the German press releases of the "poor state of the
German Army". The facts are that more systems, R&D, and troop
deployments are in progress now than ever before. Germany does have
struggles and hard choices to make prior to full EU integration... but
that doesn't affect major AFV changes. When the Marder replacement was
first cancelled people said the Germans scrapped a successor. A few
weeks later the Igel was proposed and it continues even though a new
name has been given it- Puma. I saw the first mock-up of the interior
of the Igel and it was awesome. Three crew plus 12 soldiers,
wedge-shaped, 35mm gun, three large electronic displays, counter helo
and aircraft missile defenses, anti-mine detection devices, and
6th-generation modular armor protection plus internal protection
structures. A very nice IFV indeed. Regarding the tank, R&D continues
including EM armor. The Germans already have the world's best tank in
the Leopard IIA-6 but the EU as a whole wants to move forward
ultimately with faster, lighter, wheeled tanks and autonomous combat
robats that would scout for and accompany them.
> >
> > You have often pointed to some
> > > allegedly secret, yet flying and maybe even operational, German stealth
> > > aircraft--where is that one? Have you bothered to READ about how cash
> > > strapped the German military procurement and development budgets
> actually
> > > are? You live in some kind of strange dreamland, Robert--come join us
> back
> > > in the real world.
> >
> > Well, that's why since reunification the Germans have replaced nearly
> > all of their small arms, improved the Leopard II to world's finest MBT
> > in the A5/6 models, introduced the PzH 2000 SPG- also the world's
> > finest, the Fenneck, the Dingo, introduced IDZ supersoldier gear into
> > the Balkans in 2002, created KSK special forces (rated up there with
> > SAS- from scratch), are getting the Eurotiger and EC-635 helos,
> > produced bio-engineered anthrax under the Heer's research program and
> > sold some to the US in 2000/1, and contributed 13,000 troops to
> > operations outside Germany. They will introduce the Taifun UCAV next
> > year too. Meanwhile EADS is trying to get their Eurofighters, produce
> > the Mako for light strike and export sales, participate in the A400M
> > program, work on the stealth cruise misile and anti-stealth hardware
> > and convert Airbus 310s into tankers and cargo carriers. Other missile
> > programs are IRIS-T and Taurus S/O weapon. The German Navy is trying
> > to get new stealth frigates, AIP SSK submarines, develop UUCVs, etc...
> > Seems like a lot of projects for a nation with only 40 billion a year
> > on defense compared to 400 billion by the US. I think they will
> > accomplish more with less money until the EU unifies and the defense
> > pot is merged.
> >
> > As for the Firefly II stealth aircraft, two were seen over the
> > Overberg test range in the RSA years ago. The RSA allows Germany to
> > test secret weapons there like they did off their coast with the
> > German subs provided to Israel. Germany modified their launch tubes to
> > fire the Popeye Turbo cruise missile and they tested it at sea off the
> > RSA. German technicians were onboard. So I am not living in a fantasy
> > world. You OTOH are in denial.
>
> So you have no actual evidence. That figures.

The Overberg test range tests various RSA weapons too. Try yourself to
get some shots of what they're testing there. You couldn't get
evidence either anymore than you taking a trip up to Area 51 with a
camera. The Aussies have been claiming for years of scalar weapons
testing in the outback and requested local assistance in determing the
weapons there. Guess what. The agencies were stopped by the military
and turned back. So does that mean the Aussies live in fantasy land?
>
Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> > > The 2000 Census criteria changed, I didn't misinterpret it at all.
> >
> > You need to learn to read. Look up the definition of "majority"--your
> > numbers do not add up to 51% or more of the US population. And again,
before
> > you go spouting off this crap, read how the census determined that
> > figure--read especially about first, second, and total ancestry, then
come
> > back and tell me, one of the folks who listed German as ONE of my
ancestry
> > lines, just how that makes me "German American". Your lunacy is
growing...
>
> Brooks according to the 2004 World Almanac the US population in
> 281,421,906 of which 211,460,626 are Caucasian. To simplify the math
> let's just reduce the numbers to 281 mil and 211 mil respectively.
> Whites make up the majority with around 75% of the total population.

When you are trying to make a statement about the ethnic backgrounds of
*Americans* you can't just discard those ethnicities you find to be
problematic to your ridiculous thesis that "the majority" of Americans are
of German extraction.

> Out of this 211 mil German-Americans number approx. 65 million, or 31%
> of that total.

Incorrect. That 65 million includes folks like me who listed German ancestry
IN ADDITION to other ancestral contributors--they are not by definition
"German Americans" (whatever the hell that is).

That 31% in the white sub-category is greater than the
> next two big ethnic sub-majorities of Irish and British Americans
> making German-Americans the largest single ethnic majority under the
> caucasian category.

Wrong again. My ancestry is by far mostly English, with a very small German
contribution--but by your definition, I am a "German American"? LOL! Wrong
again, Arndt.

Minorities continue to have the option of being
> counted as sub-categories but the Caucasian sub-categories are too
> large to list anymore so they are all lumped together with the
> pathetic "other" option box. I always list myself as German-American
> because my parents were both German as were their parents stretching
> back to the Fatherland. I am German by blood and that to me is more
> important than national boundries.

I an detect the background music..."Deutschland Uber Alles". Everytime you
start ranting about "German blood" and "the Fatherland" I get a quesy
feeling. Is it hard to type these posts with your right arm raised?

I could care less what ethnic
> background you are but I am not mixed

Perish the thought! All of those "nasty" impurities you could have been
subjected to!

hence I have no problem listing
> my background. Many other German-Americans feel the same and in the
> 1990 Census their number was #1 in the Caucasian sub-category group.
> There is no lunacy about the numbers- there are 65 million people in
> the US that claim German ethnic background. This puts them ahead of
> any minority group and first among the white sub-groups. Fact.

You are again twisting the figures--the fact that 65 million listed German
ancestry as ONE of their roots (a) does not in itself constitute a "majority
of Americans", as you earlier claimed, and (b) does not define even those 65
million as "German Americans".

> >
> > >
> > > Last year you were promising us a "new" German battle
> > > > tank--where is this curious weapon (in reality the Bundeswehr is
trying
> > to
> > > > preserve what strength it has remaining, is interested (like the
rest of
> > the
> > > > western world) in finding lighter vehicles to replace its older
heavier
> > > > armor systems, and finally lacks the R&D budget to even attempt, had
> > they
> > > > wanted to, the development of a new MBT)?
> > >
> > > To what specific post are you referring to? The Heer has already
> > > tested a Leopard II with 140mm main gun. DB was experimenting with a
> > > 50 ton wheeled tank which can be seen in the Concord Book "German
> > > Wheeled Fighting Vehicles" Series #7504 pg 48. That vehicle has been
> > > tested since 1995. On the "Flecktarn" online site you can see the RjPz
> > > Panther crane tank which is also testing. Then there is the fully
> > > tracked EGS tank trials vehicle by KMW seen in "New Vanguard 24:
> > > Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-1998" pg 47. Finally there is the EGS
> > > architecture applied to the Leopard III design in RAIDS SPECIAL No.5
> > > "Les Chars en Action" pgs 81-82. You may also remember that the new
> > > IFV that was named Igel (Hedgehog) has now been redesignated Puma and
> > > is on track. That doesn't in any way interfere with the KMW submission
> > > for the Euro-wheeled family of AFVs- the MRAV. And then there is the
> > > ultra-futuristic Kpz Lowe in the design stage.
> > > So what are YOU talking about?
> >
> > Where is the *new* tank you said the Wehrmacht was buying? H'mmm? Choose
> > one.
> >
> Brooks, provide the thread. I think you are distorting what I said for
> your own purpose of discrediting me.


Me: " There is significant doubt that *any* follow on MBT program in Germany
ever comes about; you might want to examine what is happening right now with
their Panther IFV program, and the recent statements regarding their desire
to move to a lighter/more deployable "light armor" concept, similar to US "

You: "Maybe you should do some research yourself since Germany already has
several prototype tanks testing- the tracked KMW vehicle, the wheeled
DB vehicle, the NGP technology demonstrator, and RakJpz Panther
cranetank {note--this program was recommended for termination by the German
Army in July 2002--KB]. In recent years the Germans have introduced upgraded
Wiesels, the Fenneck, the Dingo, PzH2000, and the prototype European
IFV. The German Army also plans to introduce autonomous combat robots
with its future AFVs and is set to field the world's first
Supersoldiers- IDZ "Jagers" (Hunters) in 2004." (August 9 2002 in this NG)

Where are these new MBT programs you were disagreeing with me about? Hell,
where are the "supersoldiers" you were bragging about? You keep trotting out
these pie-in-the-sky german vaporware developments...but other than upgraded
Weasels, Dingo light armored vehicles, and the PZH2000, we have seen little
further development and no procurement of new AFV's in the Bundeswehr.



You are like the people who
> actually believe the German press releases of the "poor state of the
> German Army". The facts are that more systems, R&D, and troop
> deployments are in progress now than ever before.

"The German Army will take the biggest cut in personnel. It already is
slimming down from a structure of 230,000 personnel to 132,000, but these
numbers will go down further by 2010, depending on how the new reduction of
30,000 soldiers will be distributed across all the services, Col. Carsten
John Jacobson, the German military defense attaché, told National Defense.
The heavy forces will be reduced by 45 percent. The number of Leopard main
battle tanks will go down from the current 2,500 to 852."
(www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1294 )

"The German defense budget, he said, currently is characterized by high
operating expenditures and personnel costs, insufficient investment rate,
considerable over-planning and resources committed to contracts." (same
source, quoting a German Embassy official in Washington, DC).

It seems thing are not as rosy as you portray.

Germany does have
> struggles and hard choices to make prior to full EU integration... but
> that doesn't affect major AFV changes. When the Marder replacement was
> first cancelled people said the Germans scrapped a successor. A few
> weeks later the Igel was proposed and it continues even though a new
> name has been given it- Puma. I saw the first mock-up of the interior
> of the Igel and it was awesome. Three crew plus 12 soldiers,
> wedge-shaped, 35mm gun, three large electronic displays, counter helo
> and aircraft missile defenses, anti-mine detection devices, and
> 6th-generation modular armor protection plus internal protection
> structures. A very nice IFV indeed.

Wow! And with a paltry 1 billion EURO R&D budget for the Budeswehr, what
decade do you see these new "wonderweapons" becoming available?

Regarding the tank, R&D continues
> including EM armor. The Germans already have the world's best tank in
> the Leopard IIA-6 but the EU as a whole wants to move forward
> ultimately with faster, lighter, wheeled tanks and autonomous combat
> robats that would scout for and accompany them.

All with an R&D budget of less than $1.3 billion, huh? And the "world's best
tank"..that has never seen combat. Yeah, right.

> > >
> > > You have often pointed to some
> > > > allegedly secret, yet flying and maybe even operational, German
stealth
> > > > aircraft--where is that one? Have you bothered to READ about how
cash
> > > > strapped the German military procurement and development budgets
> > actually
> > > > are? You live in some kind of strange dreamland, Robert--come join
us
> > back
> > > > in the real world.
> > >
> > > Well, that's why since reunification the Germans have replaced nearly
> > > all of their small arms, improved the Leopard II to world's finest MBT
> > > in the A5/6 models, introduced the PzH 2000 SPG- also the world's
> > > finest, the Fenneck, the Dingo, introduced IDZ supersoldier gear into
> > > the Balkans in 2002, created KSK special forces (rated up there with
> > > SAS- from scratch), are getting the Eurotiger and EC-635 helos,
> > > produced bio-engineered anthrax under the Heer's research program and
> > > sold some to the US in 2000/1, and contributed 13,000 troops to
> > > operations outside Germany. They will introduce the Taifun UCAV next
> > > year too. Meanwhile EADS is trying to get their Eurofighters, produce
> > > the Mako for light strike and export sales, participate in the A400M
> > > program, work on the stealth cruise misile and anti-stealth hardware
> > > and convert Airbus 310s into tankers and cargo carriers. Other missile
> > > programs are IRIS-T and Taurus S/O weapon. The German Navy is trying
> > > to get new stealth frigates, AIP SSK submarines, develop UUCVs, etc...
> > > Seems like a lot of projects for a nation with only 40 billion a year
> > > on defense compared to 400 billion by the US. I think they will
> > > accomplish more with less money until the EU unifies and the defense
> > > pot is merged.
> > >
> > > As for the Firefly II stealth aircraft, two were seen over the
> > > Overberg test range in the RSA years ago. The RSA allows Germany to
> > > test secret weapons there like they did off their coast with the
> > > German subs provided to Israel. Germany modified their launch tubes to
> > > fire the Popeye Turbo cruise missile and they tested it at sea off the
> > > RSA. German technicians were onboard. So I am not living in a fantasy
> > > world. You OTOH are in denial.
> >
> > So you have no actual evidence. That figures.
>
> The Overberg test range tests various RSA weapons too. Try yourself to
> get some shots of what they're testing there. You couldn't get
> evidence either anymore than you taking a trip up to Area 51 with a
> camera. The Aussies have been claiming for years of scalar weapons
> testing in the outback and requested local assistance in determing the
> weapons there. Guess what. The agencies were stopped by the military
> and turned back. So does that mean the Aussies live in fantasy land?

What are you smoking that gives you these delusions? Still no evidence..and
what the hell is a "scalar weapon"?

Stop using the SciFi Channel as your primary resource.

Brooks

> >
> Rob

[Chris Mark]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>I don't know
>who the hell you were trying to impress with this little sideshow attack on
>Ed,

Well, Rasimus attacked me with his misapplied Mill quote, which he wields
frequently, when I asked Kramer a tongue-in-cheek question. By the way, you
are the moron who thought Gar Alperovitz was straying outside his area of
expertise when he wrote about the Hiroshima bombing. I got a good solid belly
laugh out of that. It was so good I even passed it around to some people who
have asked what the value of reading Usenet is. The answer is humor, the Three
Stooges turned loose on computer keyboards.



Chris Mark

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >I don't know
> >who the hell you were trying to impress with this little sideshow attack
on
> >Ed,
>
> Well, Rasimus attacked me

<snip>

Two can play at the snip-a-lot-of-stuff-away game; for cryin' out loud, your
response is so far out of date that I deleted the thread days/weeks ago.
Next time you post one out of the Dark Ages file, leave enough info intact
to get the gist of the discussion...and BTW, acknowledging snippage is in
good taste (but has anyone accused you of having much of that?).

Brooks

>
>
> Chris Mark