HEY! THIS IS AN AVIATION GROUP. CUT THE POLITICS

[Darrell]

This newsgroup has become overrun by politics. Let's please return to
Aviation subjects.

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[GuiltyBystander9]

There are plenty of legitimate places to discuss military aviation topics.
Usenet really isn't one of them. Cutting the spam political trash and still
what have you got? The same half-dozen seat warmers who have been here
forever, drunks, boasters, knowitalls, hasbeens, neverweres, wannabes.
If you are active duty you are not doing yourself any favors by associating
however remotely with these characters. It goes to judgement. People notice.
Do what you want of course. Your life. Read all you want. But think twice
before you post, even under a nom de net.

[Bob McKellar]

GuiltyBystander9 wrote:

> There are plenty of legitimate places to discuss military aviation topics.
> Usenet really isn't one of them. Cutting the spam political trash and still
> what have you got?

> The same half-dozen seat warmers who have been here
> forever, drunks, boasters, knowitalls, hasbeens, neverweres, wannabes.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Bob McKellar

[Ed Rasimus]

On 28 May 2004 15:33:33 GMT, "ian maclure" > wrote:

>On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:13:30 +0000, GuiltyBystander9 wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of legitimate places to discuss military aviation topics.
>> Usenet really isn't one of them. Cutting the spam political trash and still
>> what have you got? The same half-dozen seat warmers who have been here
>> forever, drunks, boasters, knowitalls, hasbeens, neverweres, wannabes.
>
> As a long time drunken boasting knowitall has-been never-was wannabe
> seat-warmer, I resent that remark

What more proof would one need that they were dealing with a real
fighter pilot than having them be drunk, boastful and knowledgeable on
all subjects?

Show me a sober, humble and ignorant individual and I will guarantee
no tactical aviation experience is present.


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

[GuiltyBystander9]

I put the word out because at least one active duty person who has posted here
is on a **** list as a result. He is never going to know it and he is never
going to understand why certain things happen in his career that cause him
grief.

There are a million ways to get screwed over in the military. You don't need
to volunteer for this one.

There are also people posting here, ex-military, who those still in and who
have advanced far up the ladder, don't like. They didn't like them when they
were in the service and were pleased their career was derailed.

These people do not like to see these individuals get any sort of attention at
all. Not even a usenet message board ****ing contest. If you participate, it
will be noticed.

Replies have been jocular. I got a laugh out of one. But believe me, if you
are active duty, think. Participating in an open forum where military rejects
and propagandists provide much of the content - is that really the smartest way
to spend your free time?

Your call.

[WaltBJ]

> GuiltyBystander9 wrote:
>
> > There are plenty of legitimate places to discuss military aviation topics.
> > Usenet really isn't one of them. Cutting the spam political trash and still
> > what have you got?
>
> > The same half-dozen seat warmers who have been here
> > forever, drunks, boasters, knowitalls, hasbeens, neverweres, wannabes.
>SNIP:

And your aviation experience is?????

Walt BJ
>

[[email protected]]

Bob McKellar > wrote:

>
>
>GuiltyBystander9 wrote:
>
>> There are plenty of legitimate places to discuss military aviation topics.
>> Usenet really isn't one of them. Cutting the spam political trash and still
>> what have you got?
>
>> The same half-dozen seat warmers who have been here
>> forever, drunks, boasters, knowitalls, hasbeens, neverweres, wannabes.
>
>You say that like it's a bad thing!
>
>Bob McKellar
>
>
Hell yes!...takes a buncha talent to be proficient in all those
fields...I can claim only a few of 'em...and I'm working on the
rest.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Ed Rasimus]

On 28 May 2004 17:42:56 GMT,
(GuiltyBystander9) wrote:

>I put the word out because at least one active duty person who has posted here
>is on a **** list as a result. He is never going to know it and he is never
>going to understand why certain things happen in his career that cause him
>grief.

Do I detect a bit of paranoia here? I always knew who disliked me on
active duty. The choice was clear--either adjust or stay the course.
Few who are in power to trash a career will do so for less than
violations of express policy. The ones who choose to do so for
personal vindictiveness won't keep it a secret from you.
>
>There are a million ways to get screwed over in the military. You don't need
>to volunteer for this one.
>
>There are also people posting here, ex-military, who those still in and who
>have advanced far up the ladder, don't like. They didn't like them when they
>were in the service and were pleased their career was derailed.

The ex-mil folks aboard here all seem to be well-respected. The ones
who didn't like me don't bother me in the least and the number of
friends I've got who are still in or far up the ladder vastly
outnumber the others.
>
>These people do not like to see these individuals get any sort of attention at
>all. Not even a usenet message board ****ing contest. If you participate, it
>will be noticed.
>
>Replies have been jocular. I got a laugh out of one. But believe me, if you
>are active duty, think. Participating in an open forum where military rejects
>and propagandists provide much of the content - is that really the smartest way
>to spend your free time?

Your paranoia overshadows all else.



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

[[email protected]]

(GuiltyBystander9) wrote:

>I put the word out because at least one active duty person who has posted here
>is on a **** list as a result. He is never going to know it and he is never
>going to understand why certain things happen in his career that cause him
>grief.
>
>There are a million ways to get screwed over in the military. You don't need
>to volunteer for this one.
>
>There are also people posting here, ex-military, who those still in and who
>have advanced far up the ladder, don't like. They didn't like them when they
>were in the service and were pleased their career was derailed.
>
>These people do not like to see these individuals get any sort of attention at
>all. Not even a usenet message board ****ing contest. If you participate, it
>will be noticed.
>
>Replies have been jocular. I got a laugh out of one. But believe me, if you
>are active duty, think. Participating in an open forum where military rejects
>and propagandists provide much of the content - is that really the smartest way
>to spend your free time?
>
>Your call.

Nah...I don't believe that stuff...sounds kinda paranoid to me.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Yeff]

On 28 May 2004 17:42:56 GMT, GuiltyBystander9 wrote:

> I put the word out because at least one active duty person who has posted here
> is on a **** list as a result. He is never going to know it and he is never
> going to understand why certain things happen in his career that cause him
> grief.

I'm throwing the flag and calling "Unnecessary Bull****" on that one.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Leslie Swartz]

I was able to derail my own career just fine without usenet . . . and the
golden boys had a lot more to work with than a couple of non-pc posts in
this forum OBTW.

And I wouldn't have had it any other way.

I chose to serve in 1978- I chose to serve according to right and wrong, not
to get ahead- and my impending retirement presents me with no bitterness, no
grief, no regrets.

Well except for those last three last straws that is . . .

Steve Swartz

(If all the Golden Boys have on you is your postings in this forum, you sold
yourself pretty damn cheap IMNSHO.)

"GuiltyBystander9" > wrote in message
...
> I put the word out because at least one active duty person who has posted
here
> is on a **** list as a result. He is never going to know it and he is
never
> going to understand why certain things happen in his career that cause him
> grief.
>
> There are a million ways to get screwed over in the military. You don't
need
> to volunteer for this one.
>
> There are also people posting here, ex-military, who those still in and
who
> have advanced far up the ladder, don't like. They didn't like them when
they
> were in the service and were pleased their career was derailed.
>
> These people do not like to see these individuals get any sort of
attention at
> all. Not even a usenet message board ****ing contest. If you
participate, it
> will be noticed.
>
> Replies have been jocular. I got a laugh out of one. But believe me, if
you
> are active duty, think. Participating in an open forum where military
rejects
> and propagandists provide much of the content - is that really the
smartest way
> to spend your free time?
>
> Your call.
>

[M.H.Greaves]

i suggest you take, whoever he is, off the "**** list", and then dump
yerself there! Mr ****ferbrains!

--
"Fire at will"
Which one's will?! Do you know these people????
"GuiltyBystander9" > wrote in message
...
> I put the word out because at least one active duty person who has posted
here
> is on a **** list as a result. He is never going to know it and he is
never
> going to understand why certain things happen in his career that cause him
> grief.
>
> There are a million ways to get screwed over in the military. You don't
need
> to volunteer for this one.
>
> There are also people posting here, ex-military, who those still in and
who
> have advanced far up the ladder, don't like. They didn't like them when
they
> were in the service and were pleased their career was derailed.
>
> These people do not like to see these individuals get any sort of
attention at
> all. Not even a usenet message board ****ing contest. If you
participate, it
> will be noticed.
>
> Replies have been jocular. I got a laugh out of one. But believe me, if
you
> are active duty, think. Participating in an open forum where military
rejects
> and propagandists provide much of the content - is that really the
smartest way
> to spend your free time?
>
> Your call.
>

[BUFDRVR]

guiltybystander9 wrote:

>I put the word out because at least one active duty person who has posted
>here
>is on a **** list as a result.

I fail to see how participating in any group could get you on any "list" as
long as you keep your partcipation to what you would discuss at an airshow
(unclassified).

>He is never going to know it and he is never
>going to understand why certain things happen in his career that cause him
>grief.

This seems improbable. In order to end someones career, you document short
comings in OPRs or PRFs, both these would be highly visable. Furthermore,
exactly what are they going to write on the OPR or PRF? "Capt. XXX associated
on the usenet with the worst of rabble." Or on the PRF "Capt. XXX is not worthy
of promotion due to his interest in learning about and educating others on
topics of military aviation"?

>There are a million ways to get screwed over in the military.

I really haven't found one yet....

>There are also people posting here, ex-military, who those still in and who
>have advanced far up the ladder, don't like.

So because Ed may have ****ed off the AF/CV twenty years ago, someone on active
duty will be "black balled" from that level for particiapting in a news group
that Ed also participates in? I doubt it.

** Disclaimer: The above scenario is fictional, I have no idea if Ed has even
met Gen. Mosley ;)

>These people do not like to see these individuals get any sort of attention
>at
>all.

I wouldn't call usenet posts "attention" at any level.

> Not even a usenet message board ****ing contest. If you participate, it
>will be noticed.

I've been participating since '98 and have managed to make O-4 and been
selected for IDE, if its been noticed, it hasn't affected my career.

> But believe me, if you
>are active duty, think.

Good advice, think...about keeping your posts unclassified and don't attempt to
use your rank or status to espouse official Air Force policy. Other than that,
and your fine, you'll learn by reading and by posting...at least I have. I've
met people who have read Ed's book and I've been able to say; "Ed and I have
exchanged views and we disagree on...." Its one thing to read someones book,
its another to be able to get into a dialogue with the author.Before "The 11
Days of Christmas" came out and openly challenged the B-52-MiG-21 shootdowns, I
was able to say; "I've exchanged views with a few pointy nosed fighter guys who
flew some of the LBII MiGCAPS and they're pretty sure no MiG-21 got near any
B-52."

>Participating in an open forum where military rejects
>and propagandists provide much of the content - is that really the smartest
>way
>to spend your free time?

The key is to avoid the trolls, and while I have been guilty myself of
occasionally trying to set a troll straight (its a waste of time), even that is
harmless to your career.


BUFDRVR

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

[Aerophotos]

My mate can confirm in LB2 - december 72, that Mig-21s were active in
the B-52 inbound/outbound streams and that one crew which was over nvn
nearly scored a kill but at night it was hard and they lost the lock.

Such is the life of a fighter puke at war.

Some get glory, some come close. Some get nothing.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:33:41 +1000, Aerophotos >
wrote:

>My mate can confirm in LB2 - december 72, that Mig-21s were active in
>the B-52 inbound/outbound streams and that one crew which was over nvn
>nearly scored a kill but at night it was hard and they lost the lock.
>
>Such is the life of a fighter puke at war.
>
>Some get glory, some come close. Some get nothing.

"your mate can confirm"??? How does that happen? Was your mate on a
BUFF over Bullseye or in the MiG-21?

There were reports of some sort of cooperative altitude reporting by
MiG-21s to SA-2 sites--supposedly the MiG was seen on the wing of a
BUFF and shortly thereafter SAMs were launched at the cell. This is
highly unlikely.

There are also two confirmed kills by BUFF tail-gunners of MiG-21s
during night ops of LB II. Although confirmed and awarded, this also
is highly unlikely. More probably a public relations ploy to provide
motivation and reward for doing the job.

MiG-21s were active throughout LB II although they suffered a number
of losses. Operations were constrained by the F-111 night attacks on
the airfields starting on 18 December. At least one F-4E out of Udorn
was lost to a MiG-21 on Dec 27--Carl Jeffcoat and Jeff Trimble were
shot down and POWs for a short term.

You might want to refer to Michel's "Eleven Days of Christmas" for
more on the B-52 altitude ranging theory and tail-gun kills. Check
Hobson's "Vietnam Air Losses for the period of Dec. '72 to learn more
about the MiG kills.

Probably more reliable sources than "your mate" confirming.



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