Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

What part of the news article I posted do you feel fails to show that?


You didn't post a news article, you posted a column by Tom Teepen. If
Teepen was ever an objective journalist he gave it up long ago.



Thanks, but I typed that article by hand.


I think you're fibbin'.



That may be true. When/if it occurs, I'd appreciate the courtesy of
being shown exactly how I've misunderstood, so that I can better
understand the truth.


I've done that Larry, many times over the years. You don't make an effort
to understand.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the
origin of terrorism. Terrorists didn't just appear out of nowhere. As
awful as their tactics are, their motivations are related to our
demonstrably unfair and in some cases highly disruptive meddling in Middle
Eastern affairs. Inasmuch as we as Americans continue to tolerate our
government's paternalistic and selfish behavior in the Middle East, we are
just as guilty as our government itself.


Arab/Muslim terrorism predates US involvement in the Middle East by a good
many years. What demonstrably unfair or highly disruptive meddling in
Middle Eastern affairs are you referring to?

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:47:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

What part of the news article I posted do you feel fails to show that?


You didn't post a news article, you posted a column by Tom Teepen. If
Teepen was ever an objective journalist he gave it up long ago.


Ah, I see. So because it's an editorial piece, you assume the author
is under no obligation to provide true and factual data, he is free to
make it all up?

I am unfamiliar with Mr. Teepen's works. Perhaps you're correct about
Teepen's lack of objectivity, but I'd have to see some impartial
evidence before I'd accept your opinion as fact.


Thanks, but I typed that article by hand.


I think you're fibbin'.


What possible motivation would I have to fib about typing the article
from the newspaper? Search for the article on the Santa Barbara
News-Press web site; you'll see that it's not available.

Please find the requisite courage to set your cynicism aside, and give
me the benefit of the doubt, or provide some logical and factual
support for your doubt.

The mere fact that you "think" I did not type the article by hand in
no way makes that assertion true. It just provides evidence that you
are willing to make unsubstantiated comments that are not based on
fact but delusion.


That may be true. When/if it occurs, I'd appreciate the courtesy of
being shown exactly how I've misunderstood, so that I can better
understand the truth.


I've done that Larry, many times over the years. You don't make an effort
to understand.


Okay. Let's put the past behind us, and take the current Teepen
article as alleged evidence that I have misunderstood its meaning.
Please provide some evidence (as opposed to opinion) that supports
your contention. Specifically what you think I misunderstood that is
contained in that article? I hereby promise that I'll make every
effort to understand your point of view.
-------------------------------------



All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still prosecuted under the Patriot Act as occurred in New
Jersey*?

---------------------------
*
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey...6903307830.xml

Jerseyan charged for pointing laser at aircraft

Morris man denied, then admitted helicopter strike and Tetorboro plane
hit

Wednesday, January 05, 2005
BY RUDY LARINI
Star-Ledger Staff

A Parsippany man who admitted shining a laser beam at a Port Authority
police helicopter on New Year's Eve after first blaming his 7-year-old
daughter has been charged with pointing the laser at a private plane
approaching Teterboro Airport two nights earlier.

David Banach, 38, is charged with two federal offenses -- violating a
provision of the Patriot Act that makes it illegal to interfere with
the operator of a mass transportation vehicle and lying to the FBI.

...

Federal authorities in New Jersey said Banach's arrest, while not
related to any terrorist threat, demonstrates the federal government's
commitment to investigate and prosecute incidents that threaten public
safety.

"We have to send a clear message to the public that there is no
harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes," said U.S. Attorney
Christopher J. Christie. "Mr. Banach's actions as alleged in the
criminal complaint put innocent lives at risk. That is illegal and
unacceptable."

Laser beams can temporarily blind or disorient pilots and possibly
cause a plane to crash, especially during critical periods such as
takeoffs or landings.

"It is important that we do everything we possibly can to ensure the
safety of our nation's air carriers," Joseph Billy Jr., special agent
in charge of the New Jersey FBI office, said in announcing Banach's
arrest. "While this particular incident was not terrorism-related, the
FBI considers this an extremely serious matter as not only was the
safety of the pilot and passengers placed in jeopardy by Banach's
actions, (but) so were countless innocent victims on the ground in
this densely populated area. ...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Ah, I see. So because it's an editorial piece, you assume the author
is under no obligation to provide true and factual data, he is free to
make it all up?


I'm not assuming anything, I'm familiar with Teepen's work.



I am unfamiliar with Mr. Teepen's works. Perhaps you're correct about
Teepen's lack of objectivity, but I'd have to see some impartial
evidence before I'd accept your opinion as fact.


You're free to research.



What possible motivation would I have to fib about typing the article
from the newspaper? Search for the article on the Santa Barbara
News-Press web site; you'll see that it's not available.

Please find the requisite courage to set your cynicism aside, and give
me the benefit of the doubt, or provide some logical and factual
support for your doubt.


Why? I don't recall you ever being swayed by facts and logic.



The mere fact that you "think" I did not type the article by hand in
no way makes that assertion true.


That's why I didn't state it as a fact.

"Matt Barrow"
And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the
purpose of education, especially tax funded "education".

Yes. Don't trust listeners to make up their own minds.

Oh, yes...students have that ability (they're just marking time in class,
you know) and that option.

These are not merely commentators, but people that have more influence on
young people then even their parents. Of course, in the modern age,
education is much more indoctrination in an agenda than teaching how to
think.

Have you been to university? There are plenty of profs who are
controversial. Unless they're saying something politically incorrect, they
don't get much attention outside the ivory tower. Do you really believe
that this guys students are going to be unbale to think their way through
anything he says? Or just the outrageous stuff?


This sort of thing
happens in the physical sciences as well.

Cite?

Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both whackos.

And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?

They'll be influenced by bull**** pseudoscience. That was *your* point, no?
Bad profs unduly influencing the sponge-like minds of both undergrad and
grad students?

moo

"John T" wrote in message
m...
"We don't deserve it, but it's our fault"? If it's truly our fault
(because of what we've done), then how can you claim we don't deserve it?

"Fault" implies cause and effect. "Deserve" is a subjective judgment of
justice.

Until you can comprehend the difference, you'll never have a clue about what
I'm talking about.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Fault" implies cause and effect. "Deserve" is a subjective judgment
of justice.

OK, Pete. Kindly tell our esteemed readers what you personally did to cause
the terrorism that spawned the 9/11 attacks. After all, you said you were
"complicit" in that. I'm really curious what is causing your guilt.

After you address that, you can tell me what *I* did (since you so
generously included me in your "guilty" class).

Or can you? I can understand if you can't.

Really.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
. ..
"Matt Barrow"
And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the
purpose of education, especially tax funded "education".

Yes. Don't trust listeners to make up their own minds.

Oh, yes...students have that ability (they're just marking time in
class,
you know) and that option.

These are not merely commentators, but people that have more influence
on
young people then even their parents. Of course, in the modern age,
education is much more indoctrination in an agenda than teaching how to
think.

Have you been to university?

Yeah, probably more than you have and three times as a parent.

There are plenty of profs who are
controversial.

Controversial, sure; psychotic, is a whole different story. The braindead
nature of many propfs, now with tax funded tenure, is evident all through
our society.

Unless they're saying something politically incorrect, they
don't get much attention outside the ivory tower. Do you really believe
that this guys students are going to be unbale to think their way through
anything he says?

Some do, many do. It's the nature of learning. While his spew generated
attention THIS time, it's not unusual in any sense.

He's not a commentator, he's ostensibly a _teacher_.

Or just the outrageous stuff?

As before, this isn't his only instance and it sure as hell isn't the only
instance, by far, in that loony bin they call _academia_.



This sort of thing
happens in the physical sciences as well.

Cite?

Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both whackos.

And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?

They'll be influenced by bull**** pseudoscience.

Are these guys teachers/professors?

That was *your* point, no?


Are these guys teachers/professors?

Bad profs unduly influencing the sponge-like minds of both undergrad and
grad students?

So, let's just let the status quo run?

I wonder what quality of professors you were expose to? :~)

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
. ..
"Matt Barrow"

Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both
whackos.

And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?

They'll be influenced by bull**** pseudoscience.

Kinda makes you wonder what sort of professors the Nobel committee learned
under, doesn't it?

But that wasn't _your_ point, was it?

On the same line, I've worked with honors students in engineering that can't
do basic math because their professors were discouraged from failing
students that couldn't do math. One of my professors years ago was dismissed
from Rice University for failing so many students. He said, "They can't do
the math, so I'm not going to pass them".

Try to see the big picture. Acquiescing to academia is folly, given that
their mission is NOT education (real education, not the PC/political
agenda), but indoctrination. Churchill is only one instance out of millions.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert
and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.

This speech was Ike's finest hour, IMHO -- even more important than his role
in D-Day.

Of course, what he said doesn't have anything to do with what I said, or
what Churchill said -- or what Peter said -- but still, it's a nice thing to
post here once in a while.

You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to
another, but the vast majority will make up their own mind quite well.

Brainwashing? The only one who could remotely be accused of trying to
brainwash anyone might be Churchill himself -- but I don't think so. As
you point out, his arguments are so absurd that most intelligent people can
see right through them.

Which, of course, is the whole point. Do we *really* want educators with
such clearly asinine positions on the payroll?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"