wrote in message news1mVc.9452$_w.5622@trndny04...
: In 4qcVc.7983$ni.1490@okepread01, on 08/19/2004
: at 09:25 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: wrote:
: In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
: at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:
:
: I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
: series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind
: things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from
: the chaffe.
:
: Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
: it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off
:
: Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged with
: controls, even automatic ones.
:
: and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
: practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
: that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
: have known that before now, since duba did it).
:
: That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by
: remote doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So I've got
: an Air Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare, and I've got
: you saying they were "easy to fly." So, what are your qualifications to
: say that?
:
: -- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?
:
: Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?
:
: To counter the utter nonsense and lies of you rightwingers. -- bush was a
: flop who went AWOL when he was asked to pee in the cup.

What part of "you can never prove that" don't you understand, Le'Turd? It's
just not true, period.