Radio - foul language

[M. J. Powell]

Another newsgroup has got on to the subject of foul language in war
films, usually Army.
I mentioned that the radio language during the Battle of Britain was so
bad that High Command wanted to remove WAAFS from all rooms where the
radio transmissions could be heard.
This is not depicted in films about the air war or the sea war.
I assume it was the same in the USAAF and USN at that time?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[BUFDRVR]

>I assume it was the same in the USAAF and USN at that time?
>

Quite unsurprisingly, it occurs today, and even tends to offend some. During
Operation ANACONDA, I was given coords by an ETAC under fire. As part of our
procedures, my offense team plotted out the coords and they landed smack inside
a small town depicted on the JOG. Since I could hear some of the chaos and gun
fire in the back ground every time the ETAC keyed the mike, I felt bad asking
him, but ROE required me to verify he knew about the town. He responded; "the
target *is* the town, I'm taking heavy fire from it...level the f%$#ing town".
I came back with a quick "roger that", which was followed quickly by someone
saying "hey...watch the language on the radio". To this day I'm not sure who it
was, it could have been another jet this guy was controlling, it could have
been the ASOC or it could have been another ETAC trying to coordinate fire
control measures with "my" ETAC via UHF. It gave me a chuckle all the way home.
Hey...let's watch our language while we slaughter other human beings.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Guy Alcala]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >I assume it was the same in the USAAF and USN at that time?
> >
>
> Quite unsurprisingly, it occurs today, and even tends to offend some. During
> Operation ANACONDA, I was given coords by an ETAC under fire. As part of our
> procedures, my offense team plotted out the coords and they landed smack inside
> a small town depicted on the JOG. Since I could hear some of the chaos and gun
> fire in the back ground every time the ETAC keyed the mike, I felt bad asking
> him, but ROE required me to verify he knew about the town. He responded; "the
> target *is* the town, I'm taking heavy fire from it...level the f%$#ing town".
> I came back with a quick "roger that", which was followed quickly by someone
> saying "hey...watch the language on the radio". To this day I'm not sure who it
> was, it could have been another jet this guy was controlling, it could have
> been the ASOC or it could have been another ETAC trying to coordinate fire
> control measures with "my" ETAC via UHF. It gave me a chuckle all the way home.
> Hey...let's watch our language while we slaughter other human beings.

What I always find silly, is the use of spaces or #@%& to replace letters in
expletives. Does anyone not know what word the writer means? If you mean
"****ing," and everyone mentally translates the word that way, what is the point of
writing "f%$#ing"? To me, this procedure makes about as much sense as children
believing that no one can see them if they close their eyes.

Guy

P.S. Because I'm feeling ornery, I will now write George Carlin's "Seven dirty
words you can't say on television or radio," with no use of spaces, asterisks or
other symbols in place of the actual letters. Those of you who will suffer
irreparable harm from the mere sight of these words in their natural form, should
read no further. You have been warned):







****, ****, ****, ****, cocksucker, mother****er, and tits.

I'm curious, so let's take a poll --

1. Was anyone unaware of any of these words (and related or modified forms of
them), or their meaning, prior to my writing them above?

2. Would anyone be unaware of what word I was referring to, or fail to mentally
translate them into their actual form, if I were to replace some of the letters
with other symbols?

3. Has anyone reading this never heard these words used in conversation?

4. Has anyone here never used any of these words themselves?

[Dave Kearton]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
| BUFDRVR wrote:
|
| Guy
|
| P.S. Because I'm feeling ornery, I will now write George Carlin's "Seven
dirty
| words you can't say on television or radio," with no use of spaces,
asterisks or
| other symbols in place of the actual letters. Those of you who will
suffer
| irreparable harm from the mere sight of these words in their natural
form, should
| read no further. You have been warned):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ****, ****, ****, ****, cocksucker, mother****er, and tits.
|
| I'm curious, so let's take a poll --
|
| 1. Was anyone unaware of any of these words (and related or modified
forms of
| them), or their meaning, prior to my writing them above?
|
| 2. Would anyone be unaware of what word I was referring to, or fail to
mentally
| translate them into their actual form, if I were to replace some of the
letters
| with other symbols?
|
| 3. Has anyone reading this never heard these words used in conversation?
|
| 4. Has anyone here never used any of these words themselves?
|
|
|



Point well made - however, just as some people would prefer not to hear such
words in conversation, possibly the same would not want to see them as
well. Veiling a word behind #$@% is tantamount to beeping out a
word on TV and now, putting an electronic patch to prevent the
tender-hearted from accidentally lipreading something offensive.


While I've done precisely as you describe, just recently, I tend to agree
with you. OTOH, part of polite discourse in the company of those of
whom you are not familiar, is not to use terms or language that will
reasonably offend anybody.



Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist roots go way
back; if you have to use his name in vain - at least spell it correctly.



<stepping down from pulpit>



Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Dave Kearton wrote:

>"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
>| BUFDRVR wrote:
>|
>| Guy
>|
>| P.S. Because I'm feeling ornery, I will now write George Carlin's "Seven
>dirty
>| words you can't say on television or radio," with no use of spaces,
>asterisks or
>| other symbols in place of the actual letters. Those of you who will
>suffer
>| irreparable harm from the mere sight of these words in their natural
>form, should
>| read no further. You have been warned):
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>| ****, ****, ****, ****, cocksucker, mother****er, and tits.
>|
>| I'm curious, so let's take a poll --
>|
>| 1. Was anyone unaware of any of these words (and related or modified
>forms of
>| them), or their meaning, prior to my writing them above?
>|
>| 2. Would anyone be unaware of what word I was referring to, or fail to
>mentally
>| translate them into their actual form, if I were to replace some of the
>letters
>| with other symbols?
>|
>| 3. Has anyone reading this never heard these words used in conversation?
>|
>| 4. Has anyone here never used any of these words themselves?
>|
>|
>|
>
>
>
>Point well made - however, just as some people would prefer not to hear such
>words in conversation, possibly the same would not want to see them as
>well. Veiling a word behind #$@% is tantamount to beeping out a
>word on TV and now, putting an electronic patch to prevent the
>tender-hearted from accidentally lipreading something offensive.
>
>
>While I've done precisely as you describe, just recently, I tend to agree
>with you. OTOH, part of polite discourse in the company of those of
>whom you are not familiar, is not to use terms or language that will
>reasonably offend anybody.
>
>
>
>Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist roots go way
>back; if you have to use his name in vain - at least spell it correctly.
>
>
>
><stepping down from pulpit>
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Dave Kearton
>
>
>
>
>
I always thought #$*& %#@& $#*&@ translated as "Friggin, fraggin,
riggin, raggin!" as expressed by some Looney Tunes character who, at
this time, I forget which one it was. Yosemite Sam maybe??

[S. Sampson]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote
>
> I'm curious,

No you're not; regretably, you are an idiot. Stop wasting our time.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>1. Was anyone unaware of any of these words (and related or modified forms of
>them), or their meaning, prior to my writing them above?
>
>2. Would anyone be unaware of what word I was referring to, or
>fail to mentally
>translate them into their actual form, if I were to replace some of the letters
>with other symbols?
>
>3. Has anyone reading this never heard these words used in conversation?
>
>4. Has anyone here never used any of these words themselves?

"A four-letter word, a four-letter word
To ban it would be a shame
It's honest, it's earthy, it ought to be heard
That wonderful one-two-three-four letter word.

It shouldn't be said in polite company
When genteel old ladies are sipping their tea
But if those ladies' pasts were revealed - sure as hell
They've not only said it, they've done it as well!"

(arr. Billy Connolly)



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Guy Alcala]

"S. Sampson" wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote
> >
> > I'm curious,
>
> No you're not; regretably, you are an idiot. Stop wasting our time.

If you feel that I'm wasting your time, then you are free to not read my
posts or put me in a kill file, just as I do with people I find not
worth the bandwidth. Presumably, you're not being forced to read and/or
reply.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

<snip>

> I always thought #$*& %#@& $#*&@ translated as "Friggin, fraggin,
> riggin, raggin!" as expressed by some Looney Tunes character who, at
> this time, I forget which one it was. Yosemite Sam maybe??

That's my somewhat hazy memory, as well.

Guy

[Stuart Chapman]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> What I always find silly, is the use of spaces or #@%& to replace letters
in
> expletives. Does anyone not know what word the writer


I just can't figure out who has this email address......

Stupot

[Guy Alcala]

Dave Kearton wrote:

<snip>

> Point well made - however, just as some people would prefer not to hear such
> words in conversation, possibly the same would not want to see them as
> well. Veiling a word behind #$@% is tantamount to beeping out a
> word on TV

I'd have to disagree: if there is no doubt what the word is, how are anyone's
presumably tender sensibilities being protected?

> and now, putting an electronic patch to prevent the
> tender-hearted from accidentally lipreading something offensive.

I guess it's time to stock smelling salts again, to revive all the fragile souls
who will be swooning into a dead faint from the mere knowledge that someone has
used an anglo-saxonism. Where is Queen Victoria when we need her?

> While I've done precisely as you describe, just recently, I tend to agree
> with you. OTOH, part of polite discourse in the company of those of
> whom you are not familiar, is not to use terms or language that will
> reasonably offend anybody.

Certainly. Just because one may have the vocabulary of a teamster doesn't mean
that it's appropriate to use it on all occasions. I _am_ a teamster, but being
around people every day who repeat the words I listed in my previous post (with
numerous minor variations) hundreds of times a day, I'm not shocked by their
use, just bored. Most people who can't manage to string more than three or four
words together without using one of the aforementioned anglo-saxonisms are
either suffering from a limited vocabulary, are lazy, or else feel that it
somehow makes them seem more macho.

Overuse of these words removes much of their force, which is a shame. Used
sparingly and in the right circumstances, cursing can be appropriate and even an
art form, and it's not necessary to use profanity. TM Oliver and Eugene
Griessel over on r.a.m. manage to be far more entertaining and much less
repetitive than my fellow workers. Well, perhaps they to tend to ascribe a 'wee
bit ower much' to the cursee (or his/her antecedents) bestial practices
involving camels, but that's a minor criticism.

But I digress. All I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that any
rational person who would be offended by hearing or seeing the more vigorous
english swear words, is less likely to be offended if the word is disguised with
asterisks, dashes or just misspelled. Were the people who would be offended by
seeing the word '****' and its variations in print, any less offended when
Norman Mailer bowdlerized it into 'fug' instead in the "Naked and the Dead",
because it was a close as contemporary bluenoses would let him come to
accurately conveying the dialog of his characters? When Dr. Evil or Grace
("Will and Grace") uses 'Fricking' in place of '****ing,' is anyone fooled?
Like the current hullabaloo about Janet Jackson at the Superbowl, this is pure
hypocracy, brought on by silly censorship.

> Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist roots go way
> back; if you have to use his name in vain - at least spell it correctly.

It's not exactly a new phenomenon. Maybe depression-era audiences really were
that naive, but somehow I doubt that audiences had any trouble translating W.C.
Fields' exclamation "Godfrey Daniels!" when he was expessing exasperation. Such
silly games are brought on by people trying to evade the usually illogical and
often idiotic dictates of censors, such as those of the old Hays Code or the
Broadcast Standards department of a TV network.

Guy

[Boomer]

even though we all know what's going on inside a bathroom, we dont
necessarily want to see it.
It's not the end of the world if we hear/see the words , just that
sometimes we would rather not. And I agree cursing has rendered the words
ineffectuall for the shock value that we once used them for, now they are
just a nuisence vulgarity, like Christina Aguilara lol.

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Kearton wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Point well made - however, just as some people would prefer not to hear
such
> > words in conversation, possibly the same would not want to see them as
> > well. Veiling a word behind #$@% is tantamount to beeping out a
> > word on TV
>
> I'd have to disagree: if there is no doubt what the word is, how are
anyone's
> presumably tender sensibilities being protected?
>
> > and now, putting an electronic patch to prevent the
> > tender-hearted from accidentally lipreading something offensive.
>
> I guess it's time to stock smelling salts again, to revive all the fragile
souls
> who will be swooning into a dead faint from the mere knowledge that
someone has
> used an anglo-saxonism. Where is Queen Victoria when we need her?
>
> > While I've done precisely as you describe, just recently, I tend to
agree
> > with you. OTOH, part of polite discourse in the company of those
of
> > whom you are not familiar, is not to use terms or language that will
> > reasonably offend anybody.
>
> Certainly. Just because one may have the vocabulary of a teamster doesn't
mean
> that it's appropriate to use it on all occasions. I _am_ a teamster, but
being
> around people every day who repeat the words I listed in my previous post
(with
> numerous minor variations) hundreds of times a day, I'm not shocked by
their
> use, just bored. Most people who can't manage to string more than three
or four
> words together without using one of the aforementioned anglo-saxonisms are
> either suffering from a limited vocabulary, are lazy, or else feel that it
> somehow makes them seem more macho.
>
> Overuse of these words removes much of their force, which is a shame.
Used
> sparingly and in the right circumstances, cursing can be appropriate and
even an
> art form, and it's not necessary to use profanity. TM Oliver and Eugene
> Griessel over on r.a.m. manage to be far more entertaining and much less
> repetitive than my fellow workers. Well, perhaps they to tend to ascribe
a 'wee
> bit ower much' to the cursee (or his/her antecedents) bestial practices
> involving camels, but that's a minor criticism.
>
> But I digress. All I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that any
> rational person who would be offended by hearing or seeing the more
vigorous
> english swear words, is less likely to be offended if the word is
disguised with
> asterisks, dashes or just misspelled. Were the people who would be
offended by
> seeing the word '****' and its variations in print, any less offended when
> Norman Mailer bowdlerized it into 'fug' instead in the "Naked and the
Dead",
> because it was a close as contemporary bluenoses would let him come to
> accurately conveying the dialog of his characters? When Dr. Evil or Grace
> ("Will and Grace") uses 'Fricking' in place of '****ing,' is anyone
fooled?
> Like the current hullabaloo about Janet Jackson at the Superbowl, this is
pure
> hypocracy, brought on by silly censorship.
>
> > Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist roots go
way
> > back; if you have to use his name in vain - at least spell it
correctly.
>
> It's not exactly a new phenomenon. Maybe depression-era audiences really
were
> that naive, but somehow I doubt that audiences had any trouble translating
W.C.
> Fields' exclamation "Godfrey Daniels!" when he was expessing exasperation.
Such
> silly games are brought on by people trying to evade the usually
illogical and
> often idiotic dictates of censors, such as those of the old Hays Code or
the
> Broadcast Standards department of a TV network.
>
> Guy
>

[S. Sampson]

Kids in high school now call the sluts this, as in "She's an aguilara."
So, if your daughter is being called this a lot, you might want to get her
a jumbo box of prophylactics and maybe some prescriptions.

"Boomer" > wrote
>
> just a nuisence vulgarity, like Christina Aguilara lol.

[Krztalizer]

>
>I'd have to disagree: if there is no doubt what the word is, how are anyone's
>presumably tender sensibilities being protected?
>

Because there are youngsters that visit newsgroups as well as us old pharts -
personally, I'd rather not be the one to add select words to their vocabulary.
Will they learn them? Most certainly. Hopefully, not from me.

The way an English teacher once explained it, "F-words" are for people with
limited vocabularies - if thats the best word you know for a given situation,
it shows your lack of education." I probably thought , "What the #$^% does she
know??" at the time....

v/r
@#$%%# Gordon

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:47:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Dave Kearton wrote:
>
>> Point well made - however, just as some people would prefer not to hear such
>> words in conversation, possibly the same would not want to see them as
>> well. Veiling a word behind #$@% is tantamount to beeping out a
>> word on TV
>
>I'd have to disagree: if there is no doubt what the word is, how are anyone's
>presumably tender sensibilities being protected?
>
>> and now, putting an electronic patch to prevent the
>> tender-hearted from accidentally lipreading something offensive.
>
>I guess it's time to stock smelling salts again, to revive all the fragile souls
>who will be swooning into a dead faint from the mere knowledge that someone has
>used an anglo-saxonism. Where is Queen Victoria when we need her?
>

I'm continually reminding my students (particularly when they lapse
into vulgarities in classroom discussion) that language is richer than
simply depending upon a half dozen expletives to fit every situation.

I suggest that there is much enjoyment to be gained by insulting one
in such expressive rhetoric that they don't realize until two days
later that they have been trashed.

There is also the loss of ability to really shock when it is required
if the most shocking terms are worn out by daily application.

I proudly point out that the basic Anglo-Saxon reference to copulation
does not appear at all in When Thunder Rolled, although there are two
"****s" and a "bull****". The second book (currently in the hands of
the publisher) contains one "****ing" used as an adjective in a direct
quote from a POW.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mike Marron]

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>"A four-letter word, a four-letter word
>To ban it would be a shame
>It's honest, it's earthy, it ought to be heard
>That wonderful one-two-three-four letter word.

>It shouldn't be said in polite company
>When genteel old ladies are sipping their tea
>But if those ladies' pasts were revealed - sure as hell
>They've not only said it, they've done it as well!"

>(arr. Billy Connolly)

Perfect! This one definitely shall be saved in my "good stuff" folder.

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:47:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:

<snip>

> >I guess it's time to stock smelling salts again, to revive all the fragile souls
> >who will be swooning into a dead faint from the mere knowledge that someone has
> >used an anglo-saxonism. Where is Queen Victoria when we need her?
> >
>
> I'm continually reminding my students (particularly when they lapse
> into vulgarities in classroom discussion) that language is richer than
> simply depending upon a half dozen expletives to fit every situation.

Couldn't agree more. Early on as a teamster, I realized that my language had become
extrememly coarse, and more importantly, I noticed that my thinking seemed to be
coarsening along with it. So, I made a conscious decision to clean it up and
exercise my vocabulary, saving the expletives for appropriate occasions.

> I suggest that there is much enjoyment to be gained by insulting one
> in such expressive rhetoric that they don't realize until two days
> later that they have been trashed.

Unfortunately, many of the people who you insult in this fashion are unable to _ever_
realize that you've insulted them, which takes much of the fun out. ;-)

> There is also the loss of ability to really shock when it is required
> if the most shocking terms are worn out by daily application.

Definitely. I can still remember our mild shock (and amusement) when, as 13 year old
Boy Scouts, my friends and I heard my mild-mannered, religious and always well-spoken
Scoutmaster cut loose. We were in the middle of a week-long backpacking trip, it had
been a long, tiring, frustrating day, and we were crossing over a small stream on
some brush cover when he took a misstep and fell through up to his thighs in 35
degree water, being trapped there for several minutes. The air turned a deep and IMO
entirely justified shade of blue while he extricated himself. Naive souls that we
were, we thought that he didn't even know those words, having never heard him use
them before (and almost never afterwards). Which was pretty silly of us, as he'd
grown up on a farm, had served in the army in WW2, and had worked blue-collar jobs
all his life. He demonstrated a familiarity with their appropriate use that, if
anything, caused us to respect and like him even more than we already did.

And another time, when we heard a kid who never uttered even the mildest oath let
loose with a "goddamnit," we knew something was seriously wrong and all came running.

> I proudly point out that the basic Anglo-Saxon reference to copulation
> does not appear at all in When Thunder Rolled, although there are two
> "****s" and a "bull****". The second book (currently in the hands of
> the publisher) contains one "****ing" used as an adjective in a direct
> quote from a POW.

And that, I feel, is when they should be used in full, without playing silly games,
to properly convey the flavor of the situation. One of my favorite examples of this,
and one of the most egregious examples of not just silly but also stupid censorship,
was in the movie MASH. In the course of that, Bobby Troup plays a sergeant who has
to drive around Hawkeye (Donald Sutherland) and Trapper John (Elliot Gould) around
various spots in Japan, especially a golf course, while they're dressed up in bizarre
Japanese costumes and acting like buffoons. Troup's muttering under his breath of
"God Damned army" at their antics on several occasions, in a tone that totally
indicated his disgust and resentment at officers, his situation, and the military in
general, was classic, and reminiscent of Willie and Joe at their best. And yet, ever
since I first saw it uncut when it was released in 1970 or so, for television and
even some versions of the movie, "God" has been routinely muted, leaving Troup's lips
moving throughout but the phrase coming out "___ Damned Army," ruining much of the
comic effect (at least for me).

As an example of just hownon-sensical this particular piece of censorship is, it's
hard for me to believe that anyone who would be offended by the utterance of the
phrase "God Damned" will be placated by its removal (and the word "screw" as in
"Hotlips? Screw her!"), when the movie retains its theme song ("Suicide is
Painless") and a story line involving the (physically) "best-equipped dentist in the
Far East" fearing that his first episode of impotence means he's become a latent
homosexual, he becomes depressive and decides to kill himself, is given a final meal
which deliberately apes paintings of the Last Supper, is given the "Last Rites" by a
Catholic priest, and is then assisted to commit a mock 'suicide' after which he is
"resurrected" by a nurse having sex with him (out of wedlock, no less!) while he is
unconscious and then tying a blue ribbon around his penis (that last may have been in
the book but not the movie: it's been almost 35 years). Yeah, nothing offensive to
conservative Christians in any of that, just make sure you remove that "God" ;-)

BUFDRVR's quote which started my rant being another case in point, unless we're
supposed to believe that the person in question was really saying something like
"Level the farting town!" In that particular case, I doubt that anyone given the
context and supplied with just the following, "Level the (expletive deleted) town!",
would be unable to supply the missing word (or a compound version), so pretending to
hide it behind #@%& or ---- is both puerile and pointless.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Krztalizer wrote:

> >
> >I'd have to disagree: if there is no doubt what the word is, how are anyone's
> >presumably tender sensibilities being protected?
> >
>
> Because there are youngsters that visit newsgroups as well as us old pharts -
> personally, I'd rather not be the one to add select words to their vocabulary.
> Will they learn them? Most certainly. Hopefully, not from me.

Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup? Aside from the
occasional adolescent, who usually doesn't stick around very long and who has
undoubtedly long-since learned these words (as they usually resort to them when
their wild claims are demolished by the regulars)? I'd say very few, and if
they're mature enough to find this newsgroup and understand the conversations, then
they've been exposed to far more swearing and adult language in their culture than
either you or I likely were at a similar age. I grew up watching "Leave it to
Beaver" re-runs, not the "Simpsons" or "South Park," and there weren't any 'gangsta
rappers on the radio (and no MTV) either. No TV beer commercials featuring dogs
biting men in the genitals, no ads for Viagra, Levitra, or incontinence products,
no Jerry Springer, etc. etc.

> The way an English teacher once explained it, "F-words" are for people with
> limited vocabularies - if thats the best word you know for a given situation,
> it shows your lack of education." I probably thought , "What the #$^% does she
> know??" at the time....

Didn't we all:-) See my reply to Ed for my reasoning as to when it's appropriate.

> v/r
> @#$%%# Gordon

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Boomer wrote:

> even though we all know what's going on inside a bathroom, we dont
> necessarily want to see it.
> It's not the end of the world if we hear/see the words , just that
> sometimes we would rather not.

<snip>

Sure. After hearing them all day long, I certainly have no wish to converse
with people here and read more of the same. But I do think that direct quotes,
at least, should remain pure, even in the course of more elevated discourse.
There is a vast difference between that, and routine and repetitive use of such
words when others are available. See my replies to Ed and others.

Guy

[Glenn P.]

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

>> Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist roots go way
>> back; if you have to use his name in vain - at least spell it
>> correctly.

By which you mean YHWH, right?

[Dave Kearton]

"Glenn P." > wrote in message
...
| Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
|
| >> Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist roots go
way
| >> back; if you have to use his name in vain - at least spell it
| >> correctly.
|
| By which you mean YHWH, right?



Yes, he's known by many names - Yahweh is only one of them.






Cheers


Dave Kearton "we shall gather at the river ...."

[Guy Alcala]

"Glenn P." wrote:

> Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
>
> >> Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist roots go way
> >> back; if you have to use his name in vain - at least spell it
> >> correctly.
>
> By which you mean YHWH, right?

(Laughing) Oh, good point! Dare we insert the vowels, and be descended upon by
a horde of enraged orthodox jews and/or Jehovah's Witnesses (Oh, wait a minute,
this is more complicated than I thought) ;-)

Guy, who feels that this discussion is quickly turning into Monty Python's "Life
of Brian" --

CROWD OF WOMEN:
[yelling]
JEWISH OFFICIAL:
Matthias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath.
MATTHIAS:
Do I say 'yes'?
STONE HELPER #1:
Yes.
MATTHIAS:
Yes.
OFFICIAL:
You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name
of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...
CROWD:
Ooooh!
OFFICIAL:
...you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD:
Ahh!
MATTHIAS:
Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That
piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'
CROWD:
Oooooh!
OFFICIAL:
Blasphemy!

He's said it again!
CROWD:
Yes! Yes, he did! He did!...
OFFICIAL:
Did you hear him?!
CROWD:
Yes! Yes, we did! We did!...
WOMAN #1:
Really!
[silence]
OFFICIAL:
Are there any women here today?
CROWD:
No. No. No. No...
OFFICIAL:
Very well. By virtue of the authority vested in me--
[CULPRIT WOMAN stones MATTHIAS]
MATTHIAS:
Oww! Lay off! We haven't started yet!
OFFICIAL:
Come on! Who threw that? Who threw that stone? Come on.
CROWD:
She did! She did! He did! He! He. He. Him. Him. Him. Him. He did.
CULPRIT WOMAN:
Sorry. I thought we'd started.
OFFICIAL:
Go to the back.
CULPRIT WOMAN:
Oh, dear.
OFFICIAL:
Always one, isn't there? Now, where were we?
MATTHIAS:
Look. I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying 'Jehovah'.
CROWD:
Oooh! He said it again! Oooh!...
OFFICIAL:
You're only making it worse for yourself!
MATTHIAS:
Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
CROWD:
Oooooh!...
OFFICIAL:
I'm warning you. If you say 'Jehovah' once more--
[MRS. A. stones OFFICIAL]
Right. Who threw that?
[silence]
Come on. Who threw that?
CROWD:
She did! It was her! He! He. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him.
OFFICIAL:
Was it you?
MRS. A.:
Yes.
OFFICIAL:
Right!
MRS. A.:
Well, you did say 'Jehovah'.
CROWD:
Ah! Ooooh!...
[CROWD stones MRS. A.]

OFFICIAL:
Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone
anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make
this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'.
CROWD:
Ooooooh!...
[CROWD stones OFFICIAL]
WOMAN #1:
Good shot!
[clap clap clap]

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 2/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>I'd have to disagree: if there is no doubt what the word is, how are
>anyone's
>>presumably tender sensibilities being protected?
>>
>
>Because there are youngsters that visit newsgroups as well as us old pharts -
>personally, I'd rather not be the one to add select words to their
>vocabulary.
>Will they learn them? Most certainly. Hopefully, not from me.
>
>The way an English teacher once explained it, "F-words" are for people with
>limited vocabularies - if thats the best word you know for a given situation,
>it shows your lack of education." I probably thought , "What the #$^% does
>she
>know??" at the time....
>
>v/r
>@#$%%# Gordon


Also you are not supposed to blurt out your battle plans over the command set.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>Also you are not supposed to blurt out your battle plans over the command set.

Depends on timescales. If you're calling in a fire mission from a
battery in direct support, or reporting a hot contact... the enemy will
gain nothing from intercepting and translating your radio messages. They
already know that Our Guys are fighting Their Guys at grid 123987, the
spooks get told to clear the net for useful messages :)

Slower time? That's what BATCO is for, painful though it may be to use.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:08:12 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Also you are not supposed to blurt out your battle plans over the command set.
>
>Depends on timescales. If you're calling in a fire mission from a
>battery in direct support, or reporting a hot contact... the enemy will
>gain nothing from intercepting and translating your radio messages. They
>already know that Our Guys are fighting Their Guys at grid 123987, the
>spooks get told to clear the net for useful messages :)
>
>Slower time? That's what BATCO is for, painful though it may be to use.

You guys make me feel like a relative youth....ever heard of
"frequency agility" AKA "Have Quick" or in simple terms, secure comm?

Regardless, as Paul notes, calls for immediate fire don't really lose
a lot if compromised.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Krztalizer]

>
>Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup?

My eight year old son, for one. Probably a few others, but as you suggest, not
many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I don't see
it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)

v/r
Gordon

[BUFDRVR]

>Also you are not supposed to blurt out your battle plans over the command
>set.

Spoken like someone without a clue. It was LOS UHF *encrypted*. However, in
some instances when units in the field ran out of keymats (which happened) we
spoke in the clear. What are the alternatives? No air support because your
crypto expired? Besides, if you intercept the comm, figure out its coming at
you, you've very little time to rectify the situation.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ed Rasimus]

On 09 Feb 2004 23:32:20 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>>
>>Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup?
>
>My eight year old son, for one. Probably a few others, but as you suggest, not
>many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I don't see
>it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)
>
>v/r
>Gordon

What? You mean they let sailors in here?

I'd not have frequented the joint had I known that was going on!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 2/9/04 3:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Also you are not supposed to blurt out your battle plans over the command
>set.
>
>Depends on timescales. If you're calling in a fire mission from a
>battery in direct support, or reporting a hot contact... the enemy will
>gain nothing from intercepting and translating your radio messages. They
>already know that Our Guys are fighting Their Guys at grid 123987, the
>spooks get told to clear the net for useful messages :)
>
>Slower time? That's what BATCO is for, painful though it may be to use.
>
>
>--
>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
>Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Radio silence. Above all radio silence. Only guys on their first mission and
scared to hell blurt over the command radio. And are so severely disciplined
on landing that they will never do it again.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Krztalizer]

>
>What? You mean they let sailors in here?

Every other Wednesday.

>I'd not have frequented the joint had I known that was going on!

Heck, they even let Marines in here! <ducking a poorly thrown San Migoo
(painted label)>

G

[Jim Yanik]

Guy Alcala > wrote in
:

> Krztalizer wrote:
>
>> >
>> >I'd have to disagree: if there is no doubt what the word is, how are
>> >anyone's presumably tender sensibilities being protected?
>> >
>>
>> Because there are youngsters that visit newsgroups as well as us old
>> pharts - personally, I'd rather not be the one to add select words to
>> their vocabulary. Will they learn them? Most certainly. Hopefully,
>> not from me.
>
> Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup? Aside
> from the occasional adolescent, who usually doesn't stick around very
> long and who has undoubtedly long-since learned these words (as they
> usually resort to them when their wild claims are demolished by the
> regulars)? I'd say very few, and if they're mature enough to find
> this newsgroup and understand the conversations, then they've been
> exposed to far more swearing and adult language in their culture than
> either you or I likely were at a similar age. I grew up watching
> "Leave it to Beaver" re-runs, not the "Simpsons" or "South Park," and
> there weren't any 'gangsta rappers on the radio (and no MTV) either.
> No TV beer commercials featuring dogs biting men in the genitals, no
> ads for Viagra, Levitra, or incontinence products, no Jerry Springer,
> etc. etc.

I believe that's called "the dumbing-down of society",that when the public
accepts some previously untolerated behavior,that it gradually becomes more
acceptable for more previously-untolerated behavior.

IOW,the line not to be crossed keeps changing downwards,as people become
used to it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus


>What? You mean they let sailors in here?
>
>I'd not have frequented the joint had I known that was going on!
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
>

Ed, the proper term for Navy persons is not "sailors" since they no longer uses
sails. The correct term is "anchor clanker."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Keeney]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup?
>
> My eight year old son, for one. Probably a few others, but as you suggest,
not
> many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I don't
see
> it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)

My eleven year old nephew and his nine year old sister once every week
or two.

[Krztalizer]

>
>Ed, the proper term for Navy persons is not "sailors" since they no longer
>uses
>sails. The correct term is "anchor clanker."
>

Look, zoomie, we're squids. Got it? :1

[B2431]

>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 2/10/2004 12:26 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>Ed, the proper term for Navy persons is not "sailors" since they no longer
>>uses
>>sails. The correct term is "anchor clanker."
>>
>
>Look, zoomie, we're squids. Got it? :1
>
Not swab jockies? Geeze, make up your minds :)

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Krztalizer]

>
>My eleven year old nephew and his nine year old sister once every week
>or two.

That's enough reason for me to keep it clean (-ish). When I slip up, thwack
me, JD, just like my daughter does.

v/r
Gordon

[Krztalizer]

>
>>Look, zoomie, we're squids. Got it? :1
>>
>Not swab jockies? Geeze, make up your minds :)

'swabs' was for the guys just out of boot camp - once we got out to sea,
'squid' seemed to stick. most of the other nicknames seemed to fade, but
occasionally, I still get called a squid by an old friend, or by my sister, the
retired AF officer that uses any excuse to barbeque me over my choice of
service. She wintered over in Misawa for three years, while I griddle-tanned
on Dodge, working one day in five. _Who_ chose poorly? :))

Granted, she had her own kind of adventure, but I think I was suited for the
role I played and I doubt I would have done as well in the USAF - not through
any fault of theirs, just a bit of a personality conflict. My favorite word
has always been "autonomous", applied to H-2 operations or as a Naval courier -
the Air Force would have hung me for some of the stunts I was in on!

v/r
Gordon

[B2431]

>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 2/10/2004 1:31 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>My eleven year old nephew and his nine year old sister once every week
>>or two.
>
>That's enough reason for me to keep it clean (-ish). When I slip up, thwack
>me, JD, just like my daughter does.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
>
That's just one reason to keep it clean. Another is there is no reason to use
vulgarity in a newsgroup. It is possible to communicate without using it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus]

On 10 Feb 2004 06:26:28 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>>
>>Ed, the proper term for Navy persons is not "sailors" since they no longer
>>uses
>>sails. The correct term is "anchor clanker."
>>
>
>Look, zoomie, we're squids. Got it? :1

Just one more "small world" example. I served for four years in the
613th TFS out of Torrejon Spain, flying the F-4C. The squadron was the
"Fighting Squids"! So, I'll always be a squid.

(In reality, the patch showed something that looked a lot more like an
octopus--black on a yellow background, hurling a red rocket toward the
ground with his tentacles. Gotta really love a fighter squadron whose
color is "yellow" and whose mascot is a spineless jellyfish.)


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 10 Feb 2004 00:23:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>>From: "Paul J. Adam"

>>Depends on timescales. If you're calling in a fire mission from a
>>battery in direct support, or reporting a hot contact... the enemy will
>>gain nothing from intercepting and translating your radio messages. They
>>already know that Our Guys are fighting Their Guys at grid 123987, the
>>spooks get told to clear the net for useful messages :)
>>Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
>
>Radio silence. Above all radio silence. Only guys on their first mission and
>scared to hell blurt over the command radio. And are so severely disciplined
>on landing that they will never do it again.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Radio discipline is important. It's an absolute, even when it isn't
necessary--as in modern ops where you've got secure comm. It still
demonstrates professionalism if the radio chatter is eliminated.

That being said, however, Art overlooks the situation. It's a ground
commander calling for fire support. The ground commander's rep, calls
for fire and must communicate the situation. If he maintains radio
silence, no one knows the need for fire. If, under the duress of the
moment, the FAC or controller adds an adjective, that can readily be
forgiven.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Feb 2004 00:23:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
> >>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>
> >>Depends on timescales. If you're calling in a fire mission from a
> >>battery in direct support, or reporting a hot contact... the enemy will
> >>gain nothing from intercepting and translating your radio messages. They
> >>already know that Our Guys are fighting Their Guys at grid 123987, the
> >>spooks get told to clear the net for useful messages :)
> >>Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
> >
> >Radio silence. Above all radio silence. Only guys on their first mission
and
> >scared to hell blurt over the command radio. And are so severely
disciplined
> >on landing that they will never do it again.
> >
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> Radio discipline is important. It's an absolute, even when it isn't
> necessary--as in modern ops where you've got secure comm. It still
> demonstrates professionalism if the radio chatter is eliminated.
>
> That being said, however, Art overlooks the situation. It's a ground
> commander calling for fire support. The ground commander's rep, calls
> for fire and must communicate the situation. If he maintains radio
> silence, no one knows the need for fire. If, under the duress of the
> moment, the FAC or controller adds an adjective, that can readily be
> forgiven.

But Art is correct in the narrow sense that such traffic would *very* rarely
be tolerated on the *command* net. Fire support would be handled on the fire
support net, just as operations reports are handles on the ops net and CSS
is handled on the admin/log net. Commanders, especially those with stars on
their collars, tend to get rather testy when the folks initiating comms on
their command nets are not either themselves or, somewhat grudgingly, their
immediate subordinate commanders. As an aside, the best single comm I ever
overheard on a command net was from an O-6 maneuver brigade commander
responding to the O-7 ADC-M after being queried as to whether his elements
were indeed moving out right *now* IAW the latest (rather confusing) last
minute FRAGO-- "Roger that, we are moving out now....don't know where we are
supposed to be going, but we are moving." Blurted out over the speaker in
our CP; everyone in the CP stopped what they were doing and looked at each
other, then burst out in guffaws. Surprisingly, he was not chastised for
that somewhat irreverent (even if it was true) comment.

Brooks

>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Krztalizer]

>The squadron was the
>"Fighting Squids"! So, I'll always be a squid.
>
>(In reality, the patch showed something that looked a lot more like an
>octopus--black on a yellow background, hurling a red rocket toward the
>ground with his tentacles. Gotta really love a fighter squadron whose
>color is "yellow" and whose mascot is a spineless jellyfish.)

LOL Ranks right up there with the Pukin' Dawgs, Ed :)

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[John Hairell]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:56:00 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>On 09 Feb 2004 23:32:20 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup?
>>
>>My eight year old son, for one. Probably a few others, but as you suggest, not
>>many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I don't see
>>it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)
>>
>>v/r
>>Gordon
>
>What? You mean they let sailors in here?
>
>I'd not have frequented the joint had I known that was going on!
>

Don't bend over or drop your soap while they are around.....;-)

John Hairell )

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>Radio discipline is important. It's an absolute, even when it isn't
>necessary--as in modern ops where you've got secure comm. It still
>demonstrates professionalism if the radio chatter is eliminated.

Speaking of radio chatter, I'll never forget October 29, 1998. For it
was on that special day I flew my first homebuilt trike to watch
77-year-old John Glenn return to space -- 36 years, 8 months and
nine days after he became the first American to orbit the Earth.

Approaching Launch Pad LC-39B after a 90-minute west to east flight
across the Florida peninsula, it was time to turn on the radio. I was
astounded at how busy the Patrick AFB controller was! Obviously,
countless Cessnas, Pipers and other general aviation pilots had also
taken the day off from work and flew to the Cape for exactly the same
reason I did.

I decided not to bother Patrick's approach controller after monitoring
the conversation and hearing the controller barking out instructions
non-stop:

Patrick Controller: "Shuttle delay, intruder VFR aircraft in the
restricted launch zone..." [static]

"Patrick this is Cessna Five Niner Zero Charlie...what's the uhh,
status with the shuttle lau..." [static]

Patrick Controller: "Sir, no advisories today! Please, all VFR traffic
look at your charts. The reason for the shuttle delay is stray VFR
traffic in the launch zone!" [static]

"Patrick [static] this is, ahh...Beech Six Three Seven Kilo requesting
traffic adv..."

Patrick Controller: "Three Seven Kilo [static] NO advisories today,
squawk VFR and stay clear of the restricted zone!"

"Ahh [static] G'day Patrick this is Cessna Oh Four Niner reques..."

Patrick Controller: "OK, all VFR aircraft turn OFF your transponders,
you're overloading [static] my scope. Repeat, all VFR traffic turn OFF
your transponders!" [static]

"Patrick, Beech Triple Five Alpha Tango could you give us a status
rep..."

Patrick Controller: "Beech Triple Fiver Alpha Tango NO advisories
today, launch has been delayed, check transponder OFF, stay clear of
the restricted airspace!" [static]

"Patrick this is Warrior Six Three...." [static]

Patrick Controller: "ALL VFR traffic...DO NOT contact Patrick for
Shuttle Advisories!" [screeeech] "We will advise you one-minute
liftoff!" [static]

"Uhh, Patrick...cessna Zero Three Three requesting shuttle
advisories...." [static]

Patrick Controller: [GASP]

I turned the volume down a bit on the radio and focused on flying the
trike and avoiding the other airplanes whizzing by in all directions.
With one hand on the control bar and the other holding onto my
ever-ready camera, I circled around on the edge of the restricted
airspace wondering what was going to happen to the pilot who
inadvertantly strayed into the Shuttle's airspace, holding up the
launch in front of a world wide audience!

Finally, the controller announced the countdown sequence had begun.
Immediately, I wheeled the trike around into the best possible camera
position...

Composed of a winged orbiter and utilizing three extremely powerful,
reusable main engines and two reusable solid rocket boosters, the
largest solid-propellant motors ever flown and a disposable external
centerline fuel tank, the Shuttle lifted up and away from its vertical
position on the launch pad and into orbit in just under eight minutes.
Accelerating past mach three in a matter of a few minutes, I lost
sight of the Shuttle before it left the troposphere. In a few seconds,
all that could be seen of the Discovery was its humongous white smoke
plume, drifting southward in the sparkling blue, Florida sky.

Leaving the poor Patrick AFB controller to his woes, I saluted John
Glenn and the entire crew of STS-95 then turned my humble yet
very capable craft westward towards home.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:08:12 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>Slower time? That's what BATCO is for, painful though it may be to use.
>
>You guys make me feel like a relative youth....ever heard of
>"frequency agility" AKA "Have Quick" or in simple terms, secure comm?

We have indeed. There is a rumour that one day, such systems may even
trickle down to the battlegroup level :)

The program is named Bowman, and has been much delayed with concomitant
woe: though the end result is apparently rather good.




--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Guy Alcala]

Dave Kearton wrote:

> "Glenn P." > wrote in message
> ...
> | Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
> |
> | >> Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist roots go
> way
> | >> back; if you have to use his name in vain - at least spell it
> | >> correctly.
> |
> | By which you mean YHWH, right?
>
> Yes, he's known by many names - Yahweh is only one of them.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave Kearton "we shall gather at the river ...."

Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least three
different groups, and probably more. By asserting that

a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.

b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in "God's
coming, and She's ****ed").

c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)

Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long agnostic)

[Guy Alcala]

Krztalizer wrote:

> >
> >Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup?
>
> My eight year old son, for one.

And has HE never heard or seen these words, say uttered by his father in a moment
of exasperation? ;-) Or from his friends, or on music CDs or ? Naturally, we can
and IMO should try and set an example of not using profanity gratuitously. But
again, I'm curious. Have you ever asked him what HE thought f&%#@ing meant?

> Probably a few others, but as you suggest, not
> many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I don't see
> it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)

Ladies generally aren't, anymore, and I suspect most women would be offended by
the notion that they're so fragile that men have to protect them from hearing or
reading swear words. Many have an equal facility with them as men (which may be a
good or bad thing).

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

John Keeney wrote:

> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup?
> >
> > My eight year old son, for one. Probably a few others, but as you suggest,
> not
> > many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I don't
> see
> > it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)
>
> My eleven year old nephew and his nine year old sister once every week
> or two.

And are either of them unaware of these words? I'm not trying to be a smartass,
I really am curious. By the time I was 11, I'd certainly heard (and used) them
many times, with/from friends, family members and others, and children were (in
some ways) far more naive then than they are now.

Guy

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>Date: 2/9/04 3:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>Depends on timescales. If you're calling in a fire mission from a
>>battery in direct support, or reporting a hot contact... the enemy will
>>gain nothing from intercepting and translating your radio messages. They
>>already know that Our Guys are fighting Their Guys at grid 123987, the
>>spooks get told to clear the net for useful messages :)
>>
>>Slower time? That's what BATCO is for, painful though it may be to use.

>Radio silence. Above all radio silence. Only guys on their first mission and
>scared to hell blurt over the command radio. And are so severely disciplined
>on landing that they will never do it again.

Different roles and missions, Art. Radio chatter is a no-no (even if on
exercises, platoon commanders would send "Three-zero, this is one-zero,
fetch Sunray... three-zero alpha, 0898" which was the cue to "drop a
megahertz and chat" - done as a peacetime luxury, and not allowable in
combat) but while we wanted radio _discipline_, having patrols and OPs
out required that radio _silence_ be broken.

After all, if your job is advanced scout to spot the enemy's attack,
will your commander thank you for maintaining radio silence if the
enemy's tanks arrive before the runner you sent back with a handwritten
message? :)

The radio's there to be used: not one word more than necessary, but
every necessary word.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[James Hart]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> Dave Kearton wrote:
>
>> "Glenn P." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Same same with 'g_d', 'G_d' and 'god'. My Baptist
>>>>> roots go way back; if you have to use his name in vain - at
>>>>> least spell it correctly.
>>>
>>> By which you mean YHWH, right?
>>
>> Yes, he's known by many names - Yahweh is only one of them.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Dave Kearton "we shall gather at the river ...."
>
> Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least
> three different groups, and probably more. By asserting that
>
> a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.
>
> b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in
> "God's coming, and She's ****ed").
>
> c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)
>
> Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long
> agnostic)

If that's got you worried then don't go looking at what the French have
ruled on today (banning all overt religious symbols in public).
Now if God did/does exist, would they have been a fighter pilot or a bomber
pilot? (he says trying to get the post vaguely back on a RAM theme)

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[Dave Kearton]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .

|
| Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least three
| different groups, and probably more. By asserting that
|
| a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.
|
| b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in "God's
| coming, and She's ****ed").
|
| c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)
|
| Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long
agnostic)
|





Thank you Guy for raising my consciousness.


Being a born-again lesbian, I still seek forgiveness for the occasional
transgression against the tenets of the Holy Mother.


At least that's who they scream at me when I drive past , "Holy MOTHER
.........."




Cheers


Dave Kearton

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 2/10/04 12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>The radio's there to be used: not one word more than necessary, but
>every necessary word.

Plan the mission. Fly the plan. Keep your mouth shut. If you must break radio
silence either your plan was flawed or your mission was flawed. Radio silence.
Always radio silence.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Yeff]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:48:40 -0000, James Hart wrote:

> If that's got you worried then don't go looking at what the French have
> ruled on today (banning all overt religious symbols in public).

Only in state schools.

> Now if God did/does exist, would they have been a fighter pilot or a bomber
> pilot? (he says trying to get the post vaguely back on a RAM theme)

Copilots in whatever they were flying. ;-)

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Ed Rasimus]

On 10 Feb 2004 21:55:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>Date: 2/10/04 12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id:
>
>>The radio's there to be used: not one word more than necessary, but
>>every necessary word.
>
>Plan the mission. Fly the plan. Keep your mouth shut. If you must break radio
>silence either your plan was flawed or your mission was flawed. Radio silence.
>Always radio silence.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

Simply put, not all missions are the same. Certainly an interdiction
mission would require that, but I simply can't conceive of a
methodology that would allow CAS without comm.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
> >From: "Paul J. Adam"
> >Date: 2/10/04 12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >The radio's there to be used: not one word more than necessary, but
> >every necessary word.
>
> Plan the mission. Fly the plan. Keep your mouth shut. If you must break
radio
> silence either your plan was flawed or your mission was flawed. Radio
silence.
> Always radio silence.
>

Different missions different rules.

The major failure at the Battle of Jultland was that accurate radio
messages were NOT sent so the commander didnt have a
clear idea of the situation.

Active 2 way radio communication was vital to fighters
defending the UK during WW2 both to vector aircraft
on to bogies and to allow the fighters to report the true
situation back to the commander.

The Dam Busters raid required radio silence on the
way to the target but required a code word to
be sent back after the mission to indicate mission
completion or failure so that the following waves could
be sent to the appropriate target.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/10/04 2:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 10 Feb 2004 21:55:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>>>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>>>Date: 2/10/04 12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id:
>>
>>>The radio's there to be used: not one word more than necessary, but
>>>every necessary word.
>>
>>Plan the mission. Fly the plan. Keep your mouth shut. If you must break
>radio
>>silence either your plan was flawed or your mission was flawed. Radio
>silence.
>>Always radio silence.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Simply put, not all missions are the same. Certainly an interdiction
>mission would require that, but I simply can't conceive of a
>methodology that would allow CAS without comm.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Well l flew only boring bombing missions. None of that fancy stuff like you
fighter guys flew (grin)

..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Alan Minyard]

On 10 Feb 2004 02:57:18 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: Ed Rasimus
>
>
>>What? You mean they let sailors in here?
>>
>>I'd not have frequented the joint had I known that was going on!
>>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>"When Thunder Rolled"
>>Smithsonian Institution Press
>>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>>
>>
>
>Ed, the proper term for Navy persons is not "sailors" since they no longer uses
>sails. The correct term is "anchor clanker."
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

And the correct term for Air Force types is "zoomies".

Al Minyard

[Krztalizer]

>
>And has HE never heard or seen these words, say uttered by his father in a
>moment
>of exasperation?

Once, we slid through an intersection sideways, narrowly avoiding a guy who
completely ran a red light. As we slewed to a stop, he piped in, "Dad, is that
guy a @#$%$ing idiot, too?" "Good word use, son. Don't use it again."

I definitely curse. I graduated the USN 8 week course in profanity in Feb 79,
Honor Graduate. But, around the kiddos, I *try* to use more descriptive
adjectives!

> Or from his friends, or on music CDs or ? Naturally,
>we can
>and IMO should try and set an example of not using profanity gratuitously.
>But
>again, I'm curious. Have you ever asked him what HE thought f&%#@ing meant?

Lets ask him - he isnt busy.

<slight pause>

uhhh, he knew exactly what it meant. :") Spelled it out letter by letter.


>
>> Probably a few others, but as you suggest, not
>> many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I don't
>see
>> it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)
>
>Ladies generally aren't, anymore, and I suspect most women would be offended
>by
>the notion that they're so fragile that men have to protect them from hearing
>or
>reading swear words. Many have an equal facility with them as men (which may
>be a
>good or bad thing).

Agree. But as long as I can keep my blood pressure under control reading
Michael P's posts, I'll try to keep my own salty language in the can.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[OXMORON1]

James asked:
>Now if God did/does exist, would they have been a fighter pilot or a bomber
>pilot?

I used to think my drill instructor was God, then I thought it was the FI/FE,
then I changed my mind and decided on flag rank officers. I was wrong on all
counts, my mother-in-law was the one, but she passed away, ergo God is Dead.

oxmoron1
MFE

[Peter Kemp]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:48:40 -0000, "James Hart"
> wrote:

>Now if God did/does exist, would they have been a fighter pilot or a bomber
>pilot? (he says trying to get the post vaguely back on a RAM theme)

Bomber Pilot in the Old Testament - levelling entire cities when
he/she got ****ed off.

Transport pilot in the New Testament (how else do you think the 500
were fed - airdropped supplies while his Son was distracting the
locals with a fish and bread juggling act).

Peter Kemp

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> Gotta really love a fighter squadron whose
>color is "yellow" and whose mascot is a spineless jellyfish.)
>
>
>Ed Rasimus

Perhaps the thinking here was similar to the thinking behind
"A boy called Sue"? :)
--

-Gord.

[John Keeney]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> John Keeney wrote:
>
> > "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > >Gordon, how many youngsters would you say visit this newsgroup?
> > >
> > > My eight year old son, for one. Probably a few others, but as you
suggest,
> > not
> > > many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I
don't
> > see
> > > it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)
> >
> > My eleven year old nephew and his nine year old sister once every week
> > or two.
>
> And are either of them unaware of these words? I'm not trying to be a
smartass,
> I really am curious. By the time I was 11, I'd certainly heard (and used)
them
> many times, with/from friends, family members and others, and children
were (in
> some ways) far more naive then than they are now.

Aware? I'm sure they've heard them but I've all but never heard
one of them use one of'm outside of "Ah, you said a bad word",
"What? What did I say?", "You said ____ <giggle>."
I'm fairly sure that the history & derivation of several of them
are a complete mystery in which they have little interest.

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:01:43 -0500, Yeff > wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:48:40 -0000, James Hart wrote:
>
>> If that's got you worried then don't go looking at what the French have
>> ruled on today (banning all overt religious symbols in public).
>
>Only in state schools.
>
>> Now if God did/does exist, would they have been a fighter pilot or a bomber
>> pilot? (he says trying to get the post vaguely back on a RAM theme)
>
>Copilots in whatever they were flying. ;-)
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com

Actually he would be a P-3 driver. Going after those "down below" types.

And the French did not ban all religious symbols, only those of
"unpopular" religions such as Judaism and the Moslem faith.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>And the correct term for Air Force types is "zoomies".

Over here it's "crabs".

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Felger Carbon]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> And the French did not ban all religious symbols, only those of
> "unpopular" religions such as Judaism and the Moslem faith.

Al, I thought large crosses (warn around the neck) were also
forbidden. Did I get this wrong?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:01:43 -0500, Yeff > wrote:
>

>
> And the French did not ban all religious symbols, only those of
> "unpopular" religions such as Judaism and the Moslem faith.
>

Incorrect they banned ALL religius symbols including the cross
and Sikh turbans

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Felger Carbon" > wrote in message
k.net...
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And the French did not ban all religious symbols, only those of
> > "unpopular" religions such as Judaism and the Moslem faith.
>
> Al, I thought large crosses (warn around the neck) were also
> forbidden. Did I get this wrong?
>

No

Keith

[BUFDRVR]

>Certainly an interdiction
>mission would require that, but I simply can't conceive of a
>methodology that would allow CAS without comm.

Digital CAS (or DCAS), is right around the corner, but Art can't concieve of
DCAS or anything after 1946.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[B2431]

>From: (BUFDRVR)

>
>>Certainly an interdiction
>>mission would require that, but I simply can't conceive of a
>>methodology that would allow CAS without comm.
>
>Digital CAS (or DCAS), is right around the corner, but Art can't concieve of
>DCAS or anything after 1946.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

Just as you can't conceive of sitting in a plexiglass nose flying straight and
level through heavy flack while holding a tight formation or flying CAS with
little if any comm with the ground. Tactics change. CAS was treated entirely
different in WW2.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Guy Alcala]

Dave Kearton wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> |
> | Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least three
> | different groups, and probably more. By asserting that
> |
> | a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.
> |
> | b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in "God's
> | coming, and She's ****ed").
> |
> | c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)
> |
> | Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long
> agnostic)
> |
>
> Thank you Guy for raising my consciousness.

Say, that's pretty good deadpan sarcasm ;-)

> Being a born-again lesbian, I still seek forgiveness for the occasional
> transgression against the tenets of the Holy Mother.

<vbg> Or, when she's feeling casual, Gaia.

> At least that's who they scream at me when I drive past , "Holy MOTHER
> ........."

H'mm, now I'll have to puzzle out what word belongs there;-)

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Krztalizer wrote:

> >
> >And has HE never heard or seen these words, say uttered by his father in a
> >moment
> >of exasperation?
>
> Once, we slid through an intersection sideways, narrowly avoiding a guy who
> completely ran a red light. As we slewed to a stop, he piped in, "Dad, is that
> guy a @#$%$ing idiot, too?" "Good word use, son. Don't use it again."
>
> I definitely curse. I graduated the USN 8 week course in profanity in Feb 79,
> Honor Graduate. But, around the kiddos, I *try* to use more descriptive
> adjectives!

As we should.

> > Or from his friends, or on music CDs or ? Naturally,
> >we can
> >and IMO should try and set an example of not using profanity gratuitously.
> >But
> >again, I'm curious. Have you ever asked him what HE thought f&%#@ing meant?
>
> Lets ask him - he isnt busy.
>
> <slight pause>
>
> uhhh, he knew exactly what it meant. :") Spelled it out letter by letter.

Sort of figured that would be the case. ;-)


> >> Probably a few others, but as you suggest, not
> >> many. Still, since its not off-limits to the wee ones AND ladies, I don't
> >see
> >> it as the same as a forum for, say, just sailors. :)
> >
> >Ladies generally aren't, anymore, and I suspect most women would be offended
> >by
> >the notion that they're so fragile that men have to protect them from hearing
> >or
> >reading swear words. Many have an equal facility with them as men (which may
> >be a
> >good or bad thing).
>
> Agree. But as long as I can keep my blood pressure under control reading
> Michael P's posts, I'll try to keep my own salty language in the can.

That is an extreme test of your willpower, I agree. But I've found that the only
sure cure is to just killfile the loons and ignore them. It's amazing how much
calmer I've been over the last several years, from not reading or seeing our
resident Splaps/optical nuke expert's drivel.

Guy

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>From: Guy Alcala
>Date: 2/11/04 9:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Dave Kearton wrote:
>
>> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>> |
>> | Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least three
>> | different groups, and probably more. By asserting that
>> |
>> | a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.
>> |
>> | b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in "God's
>> | coming, and She's ****ed").
>> |
>> | c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)
>> |
>> | Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long
>> agnostic)
>> |
>>
>> Thank you Guy for raising my consciousness.
>
>Say, that's pretty good deadpan sarcasm ;-)
>
>> Being a born-again lesbian, I still seek forgiveness for the occasional
>> transgression against the tenets of the Holy Mother.
>
><vbg> Or, when she's feeling casual, Gaia.
>
>> At least that's who they scream at me when I drive past , "Holy MOTHER
>> ........."
>
>H'mm, now I'll have to puzzle out what word belongs there;-)
>
>Guy
>
>
God flew Marauders,



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mark and Kim Smith]

ArtKramr wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>>From: Guy Alcala
>>Date: 2/11/04 9:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Dave Kearton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>|
>>>| Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least three
>>>| different groups, and probably more. By asserting that
>>>|
>>>| a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.
>>>|
>>>| b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in "God's
>>>| coming, and She's ****ed").
>>>|
>>>| c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)
>>>|
>>>| Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long
>>>agnostic)
>>>|
>>>
>>>Thank you Guy for raising my consciousness.
>>>
>>>
>>Say, that's pretty good deadpan sarcasm ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>>Being a born-again lesbian, I still seek forgiveness for the occasional
>>>transgression against the tenets of the Holy Mother.
>>>
>>>
>><vbg> Or, when she's feeling casual, Gaia.
>>
>>
>>
>>>At least that's who they scream at me when I drive past , "Holy MOTHER
>>>........."
>>>
>>>
>>H'mm, now I'll have to puzzle out what word belongs there;-)
>>
>>Guy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>God flew Marauders,
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>

What's he flying these days??

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>From: Mark and Kim Smith
>Date: 2/12/04 1:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>>>From: Guy Alcala
>>>Date: 2/11/04 9:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>Dave Kearton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>|
>>>>| Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least
>three
>>>>| different groups, and probably more. By asserting that
>>>>|
>>>>| a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.
>>>>|
>>>>| b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in
>"God's
>>>>| coming, and She's ****ed").
>>>>|
>>>>| c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)
>>>>|
>>>>| Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long
>>>>agnostic)
>>>>|
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Guy for raising my consciousness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Say, that's pretty good deadpan sarcasm ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Being a born-again lesbian, I still seek forgiveness for the occasional
>>>>transgression against the tenets of the Holy Mother.
>>>>
>>>>
>>><vbg> Or, when she's feeling casual, Gaia.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>At least that's who they scream at me when I drive past , "Holy MOTHER
>>>>........."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>H'mm, now I'll have to puzzle out what word belongs there;-)
>>>
>>>Guy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>God flew Marauders,
>>
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>>
>
>What's he flying these days??
>


He gave up flying. He knows a plane can't fly without propellers.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:50:39 GMT, "Felger Carbon" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> And the French did not ban all religious symbols, only those of
>> "unpopular" religions such as Judaism and the Moslem faith.
>
>Al, I thought large crosses (warn around the neck) were also
>forbidden. Did I get this wrong?
>
No, but "large" is a subjective thing. Is a 3 inch by six inch cross
"large"?? They included just enough "wiggle room" for the
administrators to do as they please.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 12 Feb 2004 04:36:48 EST, Mark and Kim Smith > wrote:

>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>>>From: Guy Alcala
>>>Date: 2/11/04 9:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>Dave Kearton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>|
>>>>| Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least three
>>>>| different groups, and probably more. By asserting that
>>>>|
>>>>| a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.
>>>>|
>>>>| b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in "God's
>>>>| coming, and She's ****ed").
>>>>|
>>>>| c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)
>>>>|
>>>>| Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long
>>>>agnostic)
>>>>|
>>>>
>>>>Thank you Guy for raising my consciousness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Say, that's pretty good deadpan sarcasm ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Being a born-again lesbian, I still seek forgiveness for the occasional
>>>>transgression against the tenets of the Holy Mother.
>>>>
>>>>
>>><vbg> Or, when she's feeling casual, Gaia.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>At least that's who they scream at me when I drive past , "Holy MOTHER
>>>>........."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>H'mm, now I'll have to puzzle out what word belongs there;-)
>>>
>>>Guy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>God flew Marauders,
>>
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>>
>
>What's he flying these days??

Buffs, of course :-)

Al Minyard

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>From: Alan Minyard
>Date: 2/12/04 8:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 12 Feb 2004 04:36:48 EST, Mark and Kim Smith >
>wrote:
>
>>ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Radio - foul language
>>>>From: Guy Alcala
>>>>Date: 2/11/04 9:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>>Dave Kearton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>>
>>>>>|
>>>>>| Dave, how terribly un-PC of you. You've managed to offend at least
>three
>>>>>| different groups, and probably more. By asserting that
>>>>>|
>>>>>| a. God exists, you've got the atheists on your case.
>>>>>|
>>>>>| b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in
>"God's
>>>>>| coming, and She's ****ed").
>>>>>|
>>>>>| c. God is singular, you've upset the Pagans ;-)
>>>>>|
>>>>>| Guy (who's happily avoided such controversies by being a life-long
>>>>>agnostic)
>>>>>|
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you Guy for raising my consciousness.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Say, that's pretty good deadpan sarcasm ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Being a born-again lesbian, I still seek forgiveness for the occasional
>>>>>transgression against the tenets of the Holy Mother.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>><vbg> Or, when she's feeling casual, Gaia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>At least that's who they scream at me when I drive past , "Holy MOTHER
>>>>>........."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>H'mm, now I'll have to puzzle out what word belongs there;-)
>>>>
>>>>Guy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>God flew Marauders,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>344th BG 494th BS
>>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What's he flying these days??
>
>Buffs, of course :-)
>
>Al Minyard


Nobody wants to fly aroud with a hotel strapped to his ass. ((:->))



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Alan Minyard wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:50:39 GMT, "Felger Carbon" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>And the French did not ban all religious symbols, only those of
>>>"unpopular" religions such as Judaism and the Moslem faith.
>>>
>>>
>>Al, I thought large crosses (warn around the neck) were also
>>forbidden. Did I get this wrong?
>>
>>
>>
>No, but "large" is a subjective thing. Is a 3 inch by six inch cross
>"large"?? They included just enough "wiggle room" for the
>administrators to do as they please.
>
>Al Minyard
>

A 3" x 6" cross is small on "Mr T".

[B2431]

>From: Guy Alcala

<snip>

>That is an extreme test of your willpower, I agree. But I've found that the
>only
>sure cure is to just killfile the loons and ignore them. It's amazing how
>much
>calmer I've been over the last several years, from not reading or seeing our
>resident Splaps/optical nuke expert's drivel.
>
>Guy

Awww, but you miss SO much like his latest in R.A.H about 3 phase batteries.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
>
>
> b. God's gender is male, you've got the feminists riled up (as in "God's
> coming, and She's ****ed").
>
>

It is trivially proven that God is male and the feminists know it.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"James Hart" > wrote in message >...
>
>
>
> If that's got you worried then don't go looking at what the French have
> ruled on today (banning all overt religious symbols in public).

I thought it was in public schools. I guess they won't be allowing
nuns to wear their habits should they have occaision to go into
a public school.

> Now if God did/does exist, would they have been a fighter pilot or a bomber
> pilot? (he says trying to get the post vaguely back on a RAM theme)

Hmm. I guess the flying nun won't be allowed in any French public achools.

--

FF

[BUFDRVR]

>Just as you can't conceive of sitting in a plexiglass nose flying straight
>and
>level through heavy flack while holding a tight formation or flying CAS with
>little if any comm with the ground. Tactics change. CAS was treated entirely
>different in WW2.

Agree, however the difference between Art and me is that I won't make
disparaging comments in regards to his procedures.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"