New Russian fighter...wow!

[Ricky]

Hi,
Haven't been around here in a while so forgive me if this has already
been posted or discussed.
I was watching the video of this new Russian fighter and had to pick
my jaw up off the floor watching the things it can do with it's
vectored thrust and canards!
It can fly backwards, tail first from a full stall, recover quickly
from a flat spin and, well, just check out the amazing video!
http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm
BTW I'm not alarmed about the "threat" of this new plane, unless we
get anti-military democrats in the White House, which is unfortunately
very likely.

Ricky

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
> wrote:

>
>Hi,
>Haven't been around here in a while so forgive me if this has already
>been posted or discussed.

It was introduced into operational service in 1996.

>I was watching the video of this new Russian fighter and had to pick
>my jaw up off the floor watching the things it can do with it's
>vectored thrust and canards!
>It can fly backwards, tail first from a full stall, recover quickly
>from a flat spin and, well, just check out the amazing video!
>http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm

You'll probably get a lot of input from the readership of
rec.aviation.military on this subject.

>BTW I'm not alarmed about the "threat" of this new plane, unless we
>get anti-military democrats in the White House, which is unfortunately
>very likely.
>
>Ricky

It's likely because of the pathetic performance of the current regime.
Please tell me you don't support that lot.

I also find your pro Christian stance to be at variance with the mass
taking of life performed by the military. Is this typical religious
hypocrisy or naivete?


[rec.aviation.military added]

[Darkwing]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi,
>>Haven't been around here in a while so forgive me if this has already
>>been posted or discussed.
>
> It was introduced into operational service in 1996.
>
>>I was watching the video of this new Russian fighter and had to pick
>>my jaw up off the floor watching the things it can do with it's
>>vectored thrust and canards!
>>It can fly backwards, tail first from a full stall, recover quickly
>>from a flat spin and, well, just check out the amazing video!
>>http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm
>
> You'll probably get a lot of input from the readership of
> rec.aviation.military on this subject.
>
>>BTW I'm not alarmed about the "threat" of this new plane, unless we
>>get anti-military democrats in the White House, which is unfortunately
>>very likely.
>>
>>Ricky
>
> It's likely because of the pathetic performance of the current regime.
> Please tell me you don't support that lot.
>
> I also find your pro Christian stance to be at variance with the mass
> taking of life performed by the military. Is this typical religious
> hypocrisy or naivete?
>
>
> [rec.aviation.military added]

>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>Haven't been around here in a while so forgive me if this has already
>>>been posted or discussed.
>>
>> It was introduced into operational service in 1996.
>>
>>>I was watching the video of this new Russian fighter and had to pick
>>>my jaw up off the floor watching the things it can do with it's
>>>vectored thrust and canards!
>>>It can fly backwards, tail first from a full stall, recover quickly
>>>from a flat spin and, well, just check out the amazing video!
>>>http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm
>>
>> You'll probably get a lot of input from the readership of
>> rec.aviation.military on this subject.
>>
>>>BTW I'm not alarmed about the "threat" of this new plane, unless we
>>>get anti-military democrats in the White House, which is unfortunately
>>>very likely.
>>>
>>>Ricky
>>
>> It's likely because of the pathetic performance of the current regime.
>> Please tell me you don't support that lot.
>>
>> I also find your pro Christian stance to be at variance with the mass
>> taking of life performed by the military. Is this typical religious
>> hypocrisy or naivete?
>>
>>
>> [rec.aviation.military added]


Why do democrats oppose capital punishment but support abortion? Who makes
these rules up, both parties seem to conflict each other constantly.

BTW, this is the second time this Russian fighter thread has been posted,
might be some spammer guy.

[Ricky]

On Mar 17, 5:06 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:


> It's likely because of the pathetic performance of the current regime.
> Please tell me you don't support that lot.


I do not support many of the "regime's" decisions, I abhor much of
the
president's performance, but I like Bush as a person. I am quite
distant, purposefully, from politics, and I do not discuss my
political views. Quite frankly, I do not have an abundance of
political views.
However, I am alarmed at any significant decrease in military might.
I
will stop there.


> I also find your pro Christian stance to be at variance with the mass
> taking of life performed by the military. Is this typical religious
> hypocrisy or naivete?


If not for the "mass taking of life by the military" the U.S.A. would
be quite a different place. I speculate that we would not be the
somewhat strong, free nation that we are.
I do not support the current fiasco in Iraq.
As far as my "pro Christian stance," I normally do not identify
myself
as a Christian. I am a follower of Jesus.
As far as "religious hypocrisy," well, I'm not into religion because,
like the word "Christian," the words have many varied definitions and
connotations. Hey, here's a shocker you won't often hear a stranger
proclaim in public...I do identify with the word hypocrisy; and I am
sometimes a hypocrite. I say one thing and do another. I am weak and
make wrong decisions that are contrary to my values, ethics &
beliefs.
Therefore, it is not my place to judge whether others, the military
in
this instance, are, or have, performed an act that is contrary to the
"pro Christian stance" you proclaimed upon me and then directed
towards me.

Ricky

[Ricky]

Out of respect for the purposes of this group, I will be happy to
further
discuss my faith in Jesus Christ and/or lack of political views only
via private email.

Ricky

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:30:21 -0400, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

>Why do democrats oppose capital punishment but support abortion?


You'll have to ask a Democrat. :-)

Personally, I am able to see the logic in turning the other cheek, but
I oppose pregnant women as sole occupants being permitted to operate
their motor vehicles in the car-pool lanes by virtue of their fetuses
being granted legal 'person' status. :-)

With regard to abortion, there is little doubt that children should be
reared in a loving home with two parents (Plato's Republic
notwithstanding), so if those conditions cannot be met, early-term
abolition may be appropriate (despite the opportunity for potential
abuse it opens for physicians). The state demanding that a women
carry a fetus full term is abuse, and should remain outside our
government's purview, as should all government pronouncements of what
an individual may do with his own body. At the rate evangelists are
writing new laws, before long our government will be citing citizens
for failing to put on their sweaters. Hell, look at the FAA's
requirement for homebuilders to engage in that activity solely for
education and recreation; if the motivational state of mind of an
aircraft builder isn't outside governmental preview, I don't know what
is. An aircraft is either suitable for operation in the NAS or it
isn't regardless of what its builder was thinking when he constructed
it.

That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;
for that reason, I heartily applaud the Christen church for espousing
the notion of turning the other cheek in response to aggression.

"Let us forgive each other - only then will we live in peace”
-- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy

My 2¢

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:30:21 -0400, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Why do democrats oppose capital punishment but support abortion?
>
>
> You'll have to ask a Democrat. :-)

Ok, an easy one for you then.

Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the name
of big oil?



>
> Personally, I am able to see the logic in turning the other cheek, but
> I oppose pregnant women as sole occupants being permitted to operate
> their motor vehicles in the car-pool lanes by virtue of their fetuses
> being granted legal 'person' status.

Bet you're out there with your video camera every day trying to catch
'em.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the name
> of big oil?
>

We don't but sometimes they just get in the way. ;)

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:46:05 -0700 (PDT), Ricky wrote:

> Out of respect for the purposes of this group, I will be happy to
> further
> discuss my faith in Jesus Christ and/or lack of political views only
> via private email.
>
> Ricky

You're choice but it wasn't Christ's idea to keep His Word secret, now
was it?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the
>> name of big oil?
>>
>
> We don't but sometimes they just get in the way. ;)
>

If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as morally
reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
I'm known for my understatement.


Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
> That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
> doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;

The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
requirement.

This Law was quite radical and humane in an age when insult often
resulted in extermination.


Dan Mc

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 18, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>
>> That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
>> doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;
>
>The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
>requirement.
>

Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

An-eye-for-an-eye was the common sentiment of non-Christians at the
time of Christ, as I understand it, and it's still practiced
throughout the unenlightened world. An-eye-for-an-eye leads to
perpetual retaliation. Turn the other cheek is its antithesis. And
Tolstoy's

"Let us forgive each other - only then will we live in peace”
-- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy

is mankind's only hope for peace.

>This Law [An-eye-for-an-eye] was quite radical and humane in an age when insult often
>resulted in extermination.
>

It's patently unenlightened today. And those among us who still think
that way do all mankind a disservice, IMO.

Unfortunately, today's hypocritical evangelists (Roman Catholic
pedophiles, homosexual minister Ted Haggard who railed against gays
and drugs while indulging in both, Jim Jones, the Bakers, and a myriad
others who fleece elders into taking loans on their homes to tithe)
pervert the truth and victimize the faithful. The remarkable thing
is, the parishioners beg for more after criminal preachers are exposed
for the frauds they are. It's enough to make one lose his faith in
his fellow man.

It's now the 21st century, and time enlightened humans abandon their
superstitions and magical thinking, and realize, that it is they
themselves who are responsible for their lot in life, not some
imaginary deity. It's time we grow up, and take responsibility for
ourselves.

Just imagine the poor pilot who prays for good weather in the face of
a poor forecast. If he launches, he's doomed. We all know better
than to rely on hope and faith to keep us safe when aviating; why do
we tolerate such mystical bravo sierra in our personal lives?

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 8:27 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
> >> doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;
>
> >The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
> >requirement.
>
> Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
to perpetual war"

> An-eye-for-an-eye was the common sentiment of non-Christians at the
> time of Christ, as I understand it, and it's still practiced
> throughout the unenlightened world. An-eye-for-an-eye leads to
> perpetual retaliation. Turn the other cheek is its antithesis. And
> Tolstoy's
>
> "Let us forgive each other - only then will we live in peace"
> -- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy
>
> is mankind's only hope for peace.
>
> >This Law [An-eye-for-an-eye] was quite radical and humane in an age when insult often
> >resulted in extermination.
>
> It's patently unenlightened today. And those among us who still think
> that way do all mankind a disservice, IMO.
>
> Unfortunately, today's hypocritical evangelists (Roman Catholic
> pedophiles, homosexual minister Ted Haggard who railed against gays
> and drugs while indulging in both, Jim Jones, the Bakers, and a myriad
> others who fleece elders into taking loans on their homes to tithe)
> pervert the truth and victimize the faithful. The remarkable thing
> is, the parishioners beg for more after criminal preachers are exposed
> for the frauds they are. It's enough to make one lose his faith in
> his fellow man.
>
> It's now the 21st century, and time enlightened humans abandon their
> superstitions and magical thinking, and realize, that it is they
> themselves who are responsible for their lot in life, not some
> imaginary deity. It's time we grow up, and take responsibility for
> ourselves.
>
> Just imagine the poor pilot who prays for good weather in the face of
> a poor forecast. If he launches, he's doomed. We all know better
> than to rely on hope and faith to keep us safe when aviating; why do
> we tolerate such mystical bravo sierra in our personal lives?

::YAWN::

Yeah.....

ok

[Highflyer]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the
>>> name of big oil?
>>>
>>
>> We don't but sometimes they just get in the way. ;)
>>
>
> If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as morally
> reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
> I'm known for my understatement.
>
>
> Bertie

Hi Bertie,

I am a bit confused myself. I am sure it is something that I just don't
understand. A republican friend sent me a note crying that a bill
introduced by Obama to help save peoples lives abroad would cost billions
and they aren't even americans and it is EVIL.
Yes it is good and proper and AMERICAN to spend trillions killing people in
other countries.

It just seems to be that spending billions to save people is better than
spending trillions to kill them. But, what do I know. Maybe they are just
working on the population problem.

Highflyer

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 9:40 pm, "Highflyer" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 6.130...
>
>
>
> > Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
> :
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >>> Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the
> >>> name of big oil?
>
> >> We don't but sometimes they just get in the way. ;)
>
> > If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as morally
> > reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
> > I'm known for my understatement.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Hi Bertie,
>
> I am a bit confused myself. I am sure it is something that I just don't
> understand. A republican friend sent me a note crying that a bill
> introduced by Obama to help save peoples lives abroad would cost billions
> and they aren't even americans and it is EVIL.
> Yes it is good and proper and AMERICAN to spend trillions killing people in
> other countries.
>
> It just seems to be that spending billions to save people is better than
> spending trillions to kill them. But, what do I know. Maybe they are just
> working on the population problem.
>
> Highflyer

Oh boy...

I think we're about to start the next "debbil made me do it" thread....

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>n Mar 18, 8:27 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >> That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
>> >> doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;
>>
>> >The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
>> >requirement.
>>
>> Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.
>
>Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
>to perpetual war"

You have INFERRED that I implied that a doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye
was a limitation or requirement. As I am the one who had the thought,
only I am able to provide a clarification of my intent.

My point is, that if one monkey hits another, and the doctrine of
an-eye-for-an-eye prevails within the group, the hitee will hit back
add infinitum. The doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye perpetuates
violence.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to phrase this more clearly earlier.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 10:40 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.
>
> >Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
> >to perpetual war"
>
> You have INFERRED that I implied that a doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye
> was a limitation or requirement. As I am the one who had the thought,
> only I am able to provide a clarification of my intent.
>
> My point is, that if one monkey hits another, and the doctrine of
> an-eye-for-an-eye prevails within the group, the hitee will hit back
> add infinitum. The doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye perpetuates
> violence.
>
> I'm sorry I wasn't able to phrase this more clearly earlier.

You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
understand the concept.

And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
exceed the damage.

Period.

Your's is actually the first argument I've ever heard that this
doctrine perpetuates harm.


Dan Mc

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
> understand the concept.
>
> And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
> exceed the damage.
>
> Period.

Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to suffer
from the same misconception.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 3:39 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
> > exceed the damage.

>
> Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to suffer
> from the same misconception.

Why don't you head on over and handle that for us, bub.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan writes:
>
>> You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
>> understand the concept.
>>
>> And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
>> exceed the damage.
>>
>> Period.
>
> Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to
> suffer from the same misconception.

Wow, another subject in which Anthony doesn't know **** from shinola.

[Darkwing]

"Benjamin Dover" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Dan writes:
>>
>>> You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
>>> understand the concept.
>>>
>>> And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
>>> exceed the damage.
>>>
>>> Period.
>>
>> Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to
>> suffer from the same misconception.
>
> Wow, another subject in which Anthony doesn't know **** from shinola.

Only a fool would believe that would stop Anthony from butting in.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Highflyer" > wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the
>>>> name of big oil?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We don't but sometimes they just get in the way. ;)
>>>
>>
>> If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as
>> morally reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
>> I'm known for my understatement.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Hi Bertie,
>
> I am a bit confused myself. I am sure it is something that I just
> don't understand. A republican friend sent me a note crying that a
> bill introduced by Obama to help save peoples lives abroad would cost
> billions and they aren't even americans and it is EVIL.

You gotta love the capitol EVIL!

> Yes it is good and proper and AMERICAN to spend trillions killing
> people in other countries.
>
> It just seems to be that spending billions to save people is better
> than spending trillions to kill them. But, what do I know. Maybe
> they are just working on the population problem.


Like lemmings.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan > wrote in
:

> On Mar 18, 9:40 pm, "Highflyer" > wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> 6.130...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >>> Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in
>> >>> the name of big oil?
>>
>> >> We don't but sometimes they just get in the way. ;)
>>
>> > If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as
>> > morally reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
>> > I'm known for my understatement.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Hi Bertie,
>>
>> I am a bit confused myself. I am sure it is something that I just
>> don't understand. A republican friend sent me a note crying that a
>> bill introduced by Obama to help save peoples lives abroad would cost
>> billions and they aren't even americans and it is EVIL.
>> Yes it is good and proper and AMERICAN to spend trillions killing
>> people in other countries.
>>
>> It just seems to be that spending billions to save people is better
>> than spending trillions to kill them. But, what do I know. Maybe
>> they are just working on the population problem.
>>
>> Highflyer
>
> Oh boy...
>
> I think we're about to start the next "debbil made me do it"
> thread....
>

I thought God told him to invade Iraq.


Pity he didn;t give him a bit of a heads up about the WMD at the same
time.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 18, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
>>> doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual
>>> war;
>>
>>The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
>>requirement.
>>
>
> Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.
>
> An-eye-for-an-eye was the common sentiment of non-Christians at the
> time of Christ, as I understand it, and it's still practiced
> throughout the unenlightened world.


Yeah, like the Bible Belt.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
> wrote:
>
>>n Mar 18, 8:27 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> >> That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
>>> >> doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual
>>> >> war;
>>>
>>> >The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
>>> >requirement.
>>>
>>> Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.
>>
>>Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
>>to perpetual war"
>
> You have INFERRED that I implied that a doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye
> was a limitation or requirement. As I am the one who had the thought,
> only I am able to provide a clarification of my intent.

Nope.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan writes:
>
>> You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
>> understand the concept.
>>
>> And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
>> exceed the damage.
>>
>> Period.
>
> Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to
> suffer from the same misconception.

Much like your misconception that you have any contact with reality
whatsoever


Bertie