GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:46:51 GMT, "jim" wrote
this crap:


Your not allowed to point out the obivious duplicity of the liberial
mindset.


You should learn some grammar.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

In article , Usenet Spam
Patrol wrote:

In nIxTc.20143$Yf6.6611@lakeread03, sanjian wrote:

Usenet Spam Patrol wrote:
PSALM 255 - SPAMMERs will burn in hell.

Search results for: ! NET-67-119-178-0-1

CustName: nas12.pltn13
Address: 2623 Camino Ramon
City: San Ramon
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94583
Country: US
RegDate: 2002-06-22
Updated: 2002-06-22

Ok, how did you get this info? I'm half afraid that some poor SoB in
San
Ramon, who knows nothing of what's happening here, will get harassed
because
of this.

OTOH, if this is legit... very useful...

The original ip address of the Psalm 110 spammer
was taken from its NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.119.178.120 header.

Addresses used in America are assigned by ARIN (American Registry for
Internet Numbers)

http://www.arin.net/

Using ARIN's WHOIS facility shows the address was assigned to

Search results for: 67.119.178.120

Pac Bell Internet Services PBI-NET-10 (NET-67-112-0-0-1)
67.112.0.0 - 67.127.255.255

Which further assigned a smaller portion of NET-67-112-0-0-1 to"

nas12.pltn13 SBC067119178000020621 (NET-67-119-178-0-1)
67.119.178.0 - 67.119.179.255

Right. This is the actual address space, which had to be justified by
demonstrating actual use of at least 254 host computers. A bit much for
an individual, although it could be a small enterprise.



A lookup on NET-67-119-178-0-1 gives the following information, which
constitutes the entity which facilitated internet access to the
67.119.178.120 spammer:

Search results for: ! NET-67-119-178-0-1


CustName: nas12.pltn13
Address: 2623 Camino Ramon
City: San Ramon
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94583
Country: US
RegDate: 2002-06-22
Updated: 2002-06-22

It might or might not be the actual spammer, or, more likely, an unknown
dupe of the spammer. It is entirely possible that a spammer hacked a
machine in this address space and is using it unlawfully. We simply
don't have enough data to tell.

Just for the record, I've been a voting member of ARIN for a number of
years, have given tutorials at their national meeting, published
Internet Engineering Task Force documents of addressing, and am the
authod of _Designing Addressing Architectures for Enterprise Networks
(Macmillan)_ and _Building Service Provider Networks_ (Wiley).

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:04:14 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote this crap:

But Shrub can't even string a sentence together. I don't know what
this guy did to his head, whether it was too much coke or too many
heroic Gs in his F-102, but these days he's just a few bananas away
from the monkey house. I don't believe this guy can tie up the War
Against Shoelaces, let alone run America.


I'd like to see your Harvard or Yale degree.





My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

Horvath wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:04:14 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote this crap:

But Shrub can't even string a sentence together. I don't know what
this guy did to his head, whether it was too much coke or too many
heroic Gs in his F-102, but these days he's just a few bananas away
from the monkey house. I don't believe this guy can tie up the War
Against Shoelaces, let alone run America.


I'd like to see your Harvard or Yale degree.

I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in US
military history.

"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in
US
military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad compared to
MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that time period? It was
one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many years, at least on average.
Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd take the rest of what it says with
a grain or two of salt also.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ry/q0185.shtml

"According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident
rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, much higher
than the average for today's combat aircraft."

Air Force Safety Center

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Fl...aft_stats.html

# rate/100K F-hrs years
operational
F-80 LIFETIME 870 93.27 1950-1953
F-84 LIFETIME 1955 52.86 1950-1972
F-86 LIFETIME 2449 44.18 1950-1971
F-89 LIFETIME 300 24.54 1951-1969
F-100 LIFETIME 1161 21.22 1953-1990
F-101 LIFETIME 292 14.65 1955-1982
F-102 LIFETIME 357 13.69 1953-1981 = F-102
F-104 LIFETIME 197 30.63 1956-1983
F-105 LIFETIME 297 17.83 1958-1984
F-106 LIFETIME 153 9.47 1958-1997 === !!!
misleading as several years had zero accidents
F-111 LIFETIME 115 6.13 1965-1998

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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.

In article ZKTUc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03,
"sanjian" writes:
LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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.

Killfiled LawsonE ages ago, but this made we look up the thread. He's
comparing the F-102 aggregate numbers from the Air Force Safety Center
to, for the most part, the F-80, F-84 and F-86. It should be noted
that indeed, while loss rates for the early jet fighters was rather
high, (but no higher than the recip fighters of WW 2), the numbers for
these aircraft apparently include combat losses in Korea. Numbers for
the later aircraft do not include combat losses. It's comparing
apples to bananas.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ZKTUc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03,
"sanjian" writes:
LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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.

Killfiled LawsonE ages ago, but this made we look up the thread. He's
comparing the F-102 aggregate numbers from the Air Force Safety Center
to, for the most part, the F-80, F-84 and F-86. It should be noted
that indeed, while loss rates for the early jet fighters was rather
high, (but no higher than the recip fighters of WW 2), the numbers for
these aircraft apparently include combat losses in Korea. Numbers for
the later aircraft do not include combat losses. It's comparing
apples to bananas.

That might be, but that was the specific figure that was used by the website
people have been referring to. In the same way, THAT website likely isn't
referring to combat losses of modern US aircraft either since there have
been virtually none in the past 30 years or so (the stats for the F-102
refer to losses between 1953 and 1981 IIRC), so comparisons to modern
fighters' accident rates aren't directly comparable either (and yet the
website referred to made that comparison to make a point about Bush, so
the nyah, etc).

Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an example, to
me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just Michael Moore) in this
election. The F-102, at least in the website stats I found, had no worse,
and mainly better, an accident record, than other fighter jets of that same
generation, so pointing to its stats as something to crow about regarding
Bush's bravery or lack thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to
learn to fly the plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does
anyone really think that he did?

In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

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 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).

-- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...

I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous aircraft in
US
military history.

Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me. The F-102 did have
its share of problems, and all of the "century series" of
fighters were rather unsafe by today's standards. But overall
it appears seems to have been a well-liked aircraft without
major aerodynamic problems (which is much more than one
can say about the F-101 or the early F-100s), restricted to
a short first-line career mainly by a performance level and
electronic systems that fell short of the desired standards.

This seems to be an erroneous conclusion on your part

The accident statistics are available at

http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Fl...s/f102mds.html

Of the 1000 or so aircraft produced 259 were lost
killing 70 pilots

In 1969 there were 13 losses for 162,000 hours flown
and 2 pilot fatalities

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---