 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / February 2004Bush's Flight Instructor Speaks Up
"Maurice Udell, one of Bush's flight instructors at Ellington Air Force Base in Texas, remembers Bush as a standout student. "I'd rank him in the top 5 percent," says Udell, now 73 and retired. He rejects the notion that Bush got preferential treatment or that there was anything improper about his time in Alabama or in going to Harvard before his six-year guard commitment had ended. "I was really a tough instructor but I was fair with him," Udell said, remembering Bush for his excellent memory and standout sense of humor. "I'd give him hell about something and he'd pop a joke and get you laughing and just break up the whole situation." Udell says Bush asked about a program under which National Guard pilots were assigned to Vietnam, but Udell told him he wasn't eligible because he was certified on the F-102, which the military was phasing out." ------------------------ D. Spencer Hines Deus Vult Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > "Maurice Udell, one of Bush's flight instructors at Ellington Air Force > Base in Texas, remembers Bush as a standout student. "I'd rank him in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > were assigned to Vietnam, but Udell told him he wasn't eligible because > he was certified on the F-102, which the military was phasing out." Clearly not the George Bush you are thinking of Spency.... he mentioned a "sense of humour". > > "Maurice Udell, one of Bush's flight instructors at Ellington Air Force > > Base in Texas, remembers Bush as a standout student. "I'd rank him in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Clearly not the George Bush you are thinking of Spency.... he mentioned a > "sense of humour". back in his coke head ,drinking days the shrub was supposed to be a good partyer and fun company . > > > "Maurice Udell, one of Bush's flight instructors at Ellington Air Force > > > Base in Texas, remembers Bush as a standout student. "I'd rank him in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > back in his coke head ,drinking days the shrub was supposed to be a good > partyer and fun company . Yeah, but then he gave up.... shudder! > > > > "Maurice Udell, one of Bush's flight instructors at Ellington Air Force > > > > Base in Texas, remembers Bush as a standout student. "I'd rank him in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yeah, but then he gave up.... shudder! Dude, not many people fly fighters at Mach 1+ while ripped. > > > "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Dude, not many people fly fighters at Mach 1+ while ripped. Only a lucky few. >> Dude, not many people fly fighters at Mach 1+ while ripped. > >Only a lucky few. At Upper Heyford, the guys who loaded up the F111s were ripped to the tits on all sorts. One of them used to drink in our local pub. In Vietnam he was in helicopters and was shot down so often, I'm surprised that anyone would fly with such a Jonah. At Upper Heyford, one of the bombs fell off an F111 in the blast proof hanger and armed itself. Tests on the ground crew showed up all sorts of illegal substances in their bodies. -- Julian Richards julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. > back in his coke head ,drinking days the shrub was supposed to be a good > partyer and fun company . I guess if W. was getting head in the "oral" office you'd be alrite with that and cut him some slack. Also, he'd have to be "soft" on terrorists (like letting the COLE go unanswered). Yeah, slick willie set the "new" standard and W. doesn't come close. Mark  Signature"I know in my heart and my brain that America ain't what's wrong in the world." ---Donald Rumsfeld--- > > back in his coke head ,drinking days the shrub was supposed to be a good > > partyer and fun company . > > I guess if W. was getting head in the "oral" office you'd be alrite > with that and cut him some slack. Who would give it to him? Laura? I doubt she bends at the waist. Besides, it's not like getting a hummer infringes an entire nation's worth of civil rights. > Also, he'd have to be "soft" > on terrorists (like letting the COLE go unanswered). Who let the Cole go unanswered? Clinton spent a good portion of the end of his term planning the take-out of Osama Bin Laden. When BushCo "took" office, he promptly shelved it, and planned to take FBI agents AWAY from counter-terrorism duty and dedicate them for the useless, illegal "war" on drugs. > Yeah, slick willie set the "new" standard and W. doesn't > come close. In your ignorance, you speak the truth. > Mark He's correct in his ignorance as well. It's not America. It's the criminals running -- and ruining -- her. SignatureDrew ---- A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who has never learned to walk.- Franklin D. Roosevelt <snip tasteless and juvenile tripe> > > Also, he'd have to be "soft" > > on terrorists (like letting the COLE go unanswered). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > counter-terrorism duty and dedicate them for the useless, illegal "war" on > drugs. Your account of Clinton's diligence in going after OBL is at odds with the facts as reported in various media outlets. www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/ interrogatory091103b.asp www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/ Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/ 200309/FOR20030904h.html > > Yeah, slick willie set the "new" standard and W. doesn't > > come close. > > In your ignorance, you speak the truth. Sounds like the truth is something you are having a bit of difficulty discerning. Brooks > Your account of Clinton's diligence in going after OBL is at odds with the > facts as reported in various media outlets. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/ 200309/FOR20030904h.html Various conservative media outlets, sure. > > > Yeah, slick willie set the "new" standard and W. doesn't > > > come close. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sounds like the truth is something you are having a bit of difficulty > discerning. No, not really. I'm not Dick Cheney, after all. SignatureDrew ---- Given the president's record as a businessman, and since he's now run the country hopelessly into debt, isn't it about time he sells the country off to some rich friends who will swallow the loss so he can move on to greener pastures? -- Josh Marshall >> Your account of Clinton's diligence in going after OBL is at odds with the >> facts as reported in various media outlets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Various conservative media outlets, sure. As opposed to the various left wing outlets you no doubt prefer? >> > > Yeah, slick willie set the "new" standard and W. doesn't >> > > come close. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >No, not really. I'm not Dick Cheney, after all. Well, that was a humdinger of a comeback. One might almost conclude that you had no answer for the charges... Signature"Does any one know where the love of God goes When the waves turn the minutes to hours?" Gordon Lightfoot Gods, I'm glad the Democrats have people like Drew Nicholson. He's such a GREAT example of the clueless bullshit behind their policy prescriptions.... :> > back in his coke head ,drinking days the shrub was supposed to be a :good [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] :He's correct in his ignorance as well. It's not America. It's the :criminals running -- and ruining -- her. "D. Spencer Hines" <D_SpencerHines@usa.yale.edu> quotes > Udell says Bush asked about a program under which National Guard pilots > were assigned to Vietnam, Yep, and then opted for the F-102 curriculum. the plane the military was phasing out." > "D. Spencer Hines" <D_SpencerHines@usa.yale.edu> quotes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yep, and then opted for the F-102 curriculum. the plane the military was > phasing out." Idiot. ANG pilots don't "opt" for any aircraft--they train to fly the aircraft being used by their unit. What a hoot..."Hey, Fred, what say we train as F-16 pilots, huh?" "Well, gee, Bob, won't that make it kind of hard for us to fly the KC-135's our unit is assigned?" Brooks Bingo! "tiglath" alias Jose Suriol, from Barcelona, is never playing with a full deck. He's sassy ---- but extremely estupido. He also likes to flaunt his ignorance on USENET. He's a victim off some sort of weird Catalan masochistic impulse ---- which he cherishes ---- and indulges. DSH | > "D. Spencer Hines" <D_SpencerHines@usa.yale.edu> quotes | > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | Brooks >Idiot. ANG pilots don't "opt" for any aircraft--they train to fly the >aircraft being used by their unit. What a hoot..."Hey, Fred, what say we >train as F-16 pilots, huh?" "Well, gee, Bob, won't that make it kind of hard >for us to fly the KC-135's our unit is assigned?" *Real* Air Force pilots would always want to train on fighters, and would only fly KC-135s if they mounted Sidewinders and could snap roll or they were assigned to them. -- David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask. david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee. http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O- > >Idiot. ANG pilots don't "opt" for any aircraft--they train to fly the > >aircraft being used by their unit. What a hoot..."Hey, Fred, what say we [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would only fly KC-135s if they mounted Sidewinders and could snap roll > or they were assigned to them. "*Real* Air Force pilots " fly the type of aircraft they are trained to fly and are told to fly. Most those aircraft sorties are cargo or other non-fighter type aircrat and not fighter type aircraft, so most "*Real* Air Force pilots" fly types of aircraft other than fighters. One of the reasons why Bush chose to join the Air National Guard unit was to guarantee fighter pilot training, instead of transport pilot training. Many of the best Air force fighter pilots are Air National Guard pilots, because they have so many more years of training and operatonal flight experience than most of their counterparts in the active duty Air Force. > -- > David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask. > david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee. > http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O- > > >Idiot. ANG pilots don't "opt" for any aircraft--they train to fly the > > >aircraft being used by their unit. What a hoot..."Hey, Fred, what say we [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "*Real* Air Force pilots ".... Do you mean RAF pilots? >... fly the type of aircraft they are trained to fly > and are told to fly. Most those aircraft sorties are cargo or other [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > many more years of training and operatonal flight experience than most of > their counterparts in the active duty Air Force. I assume he got his wings then? That would of been handy when he went into battle I suppose, having been so keen to fly fighters. Where was that though - don't tell me they've lost all that paperwork too? Bad luck old man! Cheers Martin <snip> > >... fly the type of aircraft they are trained to fly > > and are told to fly. Most those aircraft sorties are cargo or other [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Cheers > Martin Another clueless idiot. Yes, he got his wings. He stood alert duty. Even his worst detractors don't disagree with those facts. You, OTOH, prove once again that rational thought process is not a prerequisite for gaining access to Usenet. Brooks He's an English low-life and know-nothing. Drunk and/or stoned on some drug of choice most of the time ---- in the seedier parts of London. He and "tiglath" -- the Catalan imbecile -- tutor each other in stupidity. DSH | <snip> | [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | | Brooks > He's an English low-life and know-nothing. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He and "tiglath" -- the Catalan imbecile -- tutor each other in > stupidity. Tut tut David! What possible tutelage in stupidity do we need with a fine example like you on constant standby? Before you are tempted to 'align' yourself with this silly, bitter old fool Kevin, I suggest you check his 'history' briefly - a catalogue of shame, spite and pathetic failure. A laughing stock, and he wears a faded ginger 'roadkill hairpiece' to boot... a disgrace to his country and to the United States Navy! No Davey Crockett this man... "Crocky David" more like. If he'd been in the Alamo, he'd have been begging on his knees in tears for someone to sell him a Mexican uniform before they'd even arrived, and practising his Spanish. Cheers Martin PS Drunk, sober or tripping on LSD, I am more than a match for you Spency... you should have learned by now, fool! > Before you are tempted to 'align' yourself with this silly, bitter old fool > Kevin, I suggest you check his 'history' briefly - a catalogue of shame, spite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Alamo, he'd have been begging on his knees in tears for someone to sell him a > Mexican uniform before they'd even arrived, and practising his Spanish. Spencer is strictly monoglot. He tries to fool people into thinking he speaks several languages by peppering his writing with foreign terms, telling us that he converses with Japanese officers, and that perennial Latin. Pero el Sr. Hines es un calvo asqueroso con peluca quemada por el sol que habla solo ingles y mal. > > Before you are tempted to 'align' yourself with this silly, bitter old > fool [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Pero el Sr. Hines es un calvo asqueroso con peluca quemada por el sol que > habla solo ingles y mal. He certainly is being upity lately, tho! Someone musta put speed in his geritol. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > again that rational thought process is not a prerequisite for gaining access > to Usenet. Tsk! I only asked Kev, no need to be so scratchy! I don't keep up with the career of ever politician, that's what the media are for. And other politicians. and that's why I asked. As for the rest, we all know why a "rational thought process is not a prerequisite for gaining access to Usenet" - where would be the fun in that? So he 'stood alert duty' did he? No squadron scrambles of illustrious actions against MiGs then I assume? The cocaine must have been to keep him frosty and 'alert' - it all becomes clear. Cheers Martin > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Cheers > Martin If you didn't have scrambled sh.t for brains you would know there was no "squadron scrample" and the ADC typically launched two fighter-interceptors held on runway alert and intercepted Soviet Tupelov TU-95 Bear heavy bombers and any unidentified aircraft violating the ADIZ. > > > "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > held on runway alert and intercepted Soviet Tupelov TU-95 Bear heavy bombers > and any unidentified aircraft violating the ADIZ. Is that the same as a 'scramble' (as we call it in Blighty)? How many of these Soviet menaces did the gallant Mr Bush send down in flames them - had he been an Ace, I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it? Pompous jackass! Have you met the illustrious ex-'Commander' D Spencer Hines yet? You two should get in like a Housing Office on fire - I can hardly wait.... Cheers Martin > > > > "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > > message [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Soviet menaces did the gallant Mr Bush send down in flames them - had he been > an Ace, I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it? Only a sh.t for brains idito like you would think the ADC was in the habit of shooting down Soviet TU-95 Bear bombers absent a shooting war. > Pompous jackass! Have you met the illustrious ex-'Commander' D Spencer Hines > yet? You two should get in like a Housing Office on fire - I can hardly > wait.... > Cheers > Martin <LOL> Now I can rest happy knowing Martin Reboul has such an esteemed opinion of me. "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> ...is simply too stupid to bother with. <plonk> In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: >"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> >...is simply too stupid to bother with. ><plonk> Martin's got all the luck. ---- Paul J. Gans > In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: > >"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans Paul Gans is simply too stupid of a liar to bother with <plonk>. > > In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Paul Gans is simply too stupid of a liar to bother with <plonk>. This isn't a "Democrat/Republican" thing is it Paul? In alt.history.british Martin Reboul <martin@spamfukreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> > In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: >> > >"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Paul Gans is simply too stupid of a liar to bother with <plonk>. >This isn't a "Democrat/Republican" thing is it Paul? Oh yes. If I were you I'd lay in a *large* supply of beer and condiments and sit back and watch the unfolding drama. Almost NINE full months of Republicans and Democrats bashing at each other. At one time the parties were fairly similar on foreign policy and both were somewhat careful in domestic policy. Now there is real hatred on both sides. It is going to get ugly. And as Iraq festers through the summer, it will really get bad. Probably the most awful presidential election we've had since before the Civil War. ---- Paul J. Gans Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in message news:c0k899$24v$9@reader2.panix.com... > But I'm not looking forward to > (almost) nine months of rancor. Better not get 'er pregnant, then! :-)) For what it's worth, from an outsider, seems to me that both sides in the 'service' dispute are going off to extremes. It seems fairly obvious that Bush took an easy safe route through his obligations, but so did many others. He didn't go off to Canada. He didn't frantically clamour to get to Vietnam. He was rather silly to make his service a discussion point, though. Overall, he gets a few minus points from me. Surreyman > Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in message > news:c0k899$24v$9@reader2.panix.com... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > frantically clamour to get to Vietnam. > He was rather silly to make his service a discussion point, though. He didn't. His campaign even declined an opportunity in the 2000 cmapaign for Calhoun to testify to Bush's performance of his duties in Alabama. There is nothing easy or safe about piloting an armed Convair F-102A Delta Dagger. It had one engine. When it failed, it usually did so at low altitude and low speed. A successful ejection of the pilot was often not possible. > Overall, he gets a few minus points from me. You get many demerits from us. > Surreyman > > Better not get 'er pregnant, then! :-)) > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You get many demerits from us. The good part is that the "us" Patterson referrs to is himself, Cheney, hippo, and three guys from the RNC. SignatureDrew ---- "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are still truly good at heart [...] if I look up into the heavens, I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquillity will return again ... I must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come when I shall be able to carry them out." --Anne Frank Drew Nicholson" signed off... > "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are still truly good > at heart [...] if I look up into the heavens, I think that it will all come > right, that this cruelty will end, and that peace and tranquillity will > return again ... I must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come > when I shall be able to carry them out." --Anne Frank Sadly, she never had the chance and she believed wrongly. Most of us are good at heart, I believe that, but that mustn't stop us from crushing the ones who aren't, without feeling guilty, ashamed or beating ourselves up about it afterwards. The problem is, sorting them out.... Grim Cheers Martin > Drew Nicholson" signed off... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Grim Cheers > Martin I'm sorry you believe that way, Martin. SignatureDrew ---- First they came for the Arabs, and I did not stand up because I was scared. Then they came for the Muslims, 'disappearing ' some into secret military prisons. Then I began to remember how this story ends. STAND UP NOW FOR OPEN COURTS AND INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE THEY COME FOR YOU! "D. Patterson" <proamer@legypt.net> wrote in message > news:102s7tj1kgmv744@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > He didn't. His campaign even declined an opportunity in the 2000 cmapaign > > for Calhoun to testify to Bush's performance of his duties in Alabama. Then no wonder people got suspicious. > There > > is nothing easy or safe about piloting an armed Convair F-102A Delta > Dagger. > > It had one engine. When it failed, it usually did so at low altitude and > low > > speed. A successful ejection of the pilot was often not possible. Do I get called a hero 'cos I flew single-engined aircraft that would have had problems if it failed? Surreyman :Do I get called a hero 'cos I flew single-engined aircraft that would have :had problems if it failed? That depends on whether it was a single engine aircraft with the glide ratio of a thrown rock and an engine with a propensity to go out or not. Signature"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer > "D. Patterson" <proamer@legypt.net> wrote in message > > news:102s7tj1kgmv744@corp.supernews.com... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then no wonder people got suspicious. In view of the fact that Bush possessed an honorable discharge, there was never a reasonable basis for suspicion. Unreasoning hatred and belief in unproven and unprovable lies and defamations are by definition unreasonable behaviour. It begs the question why the media are not more suspicious of the accusations and the accusers in the face of such overwhelming evidence of Bush's faithful and honorable discharge of his military obligation? It begs the question why the media do not hold the accusers accountable to the press and the public for the repeated failures and falsehoods of their accusations. It should be a much more interesting news story to publish the reasons why Michael Moore, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and the candidates for the Presidency are delinquent in producing the evidence to support their defamatory public accusations. > > There > > > is nothing easy or safe about piloting an armed Convair F-102A Delta [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do I get called a hero 'cos I flew single-engined aircraft that would have > had problems if it failed? No less than the pilots and aircrew who risked or sacrificed life and limb flying military training sorties in the Sopwith Camel in the First World War, the PV-2 Harpoon in the Second World War, the Boeing B-47 and Convair F-102A in the Cold War, or the Blackhawk helicopters in the Gulf War and War on Terrorism. The performance of military service aboard military aircraft comes with increased risks. Losses from accidents were sometime equal to or geater than losses from actual combat engagements over Vietnam. The performance of military service as a pilot of an armed F-102A fighter-interceptor on ADC combat alert sorties was sometimes comparable in risk in some respects to flying combat sorties in Vietnam. It was risky businees wherever you were flying an armed and fueled fighter aircraft. > Surreyman In alt.history.british D. Patterson <proamer@legypt.net> wrote: >> "D. Patterson" <proamer@legypt.net> wrote in message >> > news:102s7tj1kgmv744@corp.supernews.com... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Then no wonder people got suspicious. >In view of the fact that Bush possessed an honorable discharge, there was >never a reasonable basis for suspicion. Unreasoning hatred and belief in >unproven and unprovable lies and defamations are by definition unreasonable >behaviour. I have asked before and you have not answered: who was going to give the son and grandson of Very Important People a dishonorable discharge? You legalistic view of things is nice, but few would have been that brave. And even had they done so, the paperwork would soon have been returned for the "correction of errors". All of which makes the statement that "there was never a reasonable basis for suspicion" laughable. ----- Paul J. Gans Twaddle! George Walker Bush earned the requisite number of points and was ENTITLED to an Honorable Discharge. Gans is trying to throw a red herring across the trail -- because he has already lost the argument on both the facts and the evidence. GWB did nothing in any way to deserve a Dishonorable Discharge. Further, the Air Force and ANG had a GLUT of pilots. Gans simply doesn't want to admit that ---- and is totally uninterested in the facts. He doesn't even BELIEVE in Historical Facts and has often said so. So he "makes up stuff", as McCall has pointed out -- invents outrageous hypotheticals and tries to get Patterson to argue about Gans's Invented Outrageous Hypothetical rather than the actual facts and evidence in the case ---- which Gans sedulously ignores. Schlockmeister Writ Large... Academic Fraud At NYU... Left-Wing, Bush-Haters like Gans should keep this up ---- it's alienating THOUSANDS of men and women who have served honorably in the National Guard and Reserves. Even Kerry, Yale '66 is beginning to see the danger -- but he's FAR smarter than Gans, Ohio State '54. Gans, to the contrary, has NEVER served at ALL in ANY branch of the Armed Forces... Yet he takes potshots at those who have. P. Jonathan Gans is a Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village Marxist, academic chemist, who teaches at New York University. Exitus Acta Probat D. Spencer Hines Deus Vult Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor [To Dallas Patterson -- DSH] | I have asked before and you have not answered: who was going to | give the son and grandson of Very Important People a dishonorable [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | ----- Paul J. Gans > Twaddle! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Gans is trying to throw a red herring across the trail -- because he has > already lost the argument on both the facts and the evidence. You've already tripped over it fool, and fallen flat on your ugly face yet again! > GWB did nothing in any way to deserve a Dishonorable Discharge. He didn't do anything to earn a discharge at all it seems - you have to turn up to earn a discharge ( they don't know you're there otherwise, see?) > Further, the Air Force and ANG had a GLUT of pilots. No excuse for dereliction of duty... I bet you were in that Housing Office 8AM sharp though, weren't you? Sad fellow.... > Gans simply doesn't want to admit that ---- and is totally uninterested > in the facts. He doesn't even BELIEVE in Historical Facts and has often > said so. So he "makes up stuff", as McCall has pointed out -- invents > outrageous hypotheticals and tries to get Patterson to argue about > Gans's Invented Outrageous Hypothetical rather than the actual facts and > evidence in the case ---- which Gans sedulously ignores. Mr Patterson is a sad old git who couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag without using enough acronyms to play several dreary games of Scrabble with. The ridiculous Mr. McCall is such a dismal, blinkered, pathetic fellow, he almost approaches your level of pomposity, ineptitute and crass stupidity Spency, which says very little for him, and even less for you. Thank the Stars we have fools like you lot to illustrate and demonstrate the futility of your 'cause' - whatever that is! How's that for 'pontification' Olly? > Schlockmeister Writ Large... Who you would do well to listen to David... > Academic Fraud At NYU... Whose lectures would nevertheless teach you much Dave? > Left-Wing, Bush-Haters like Gans should keep this up ---- it's > alienating THOUSANDS of men and women who have served honorably in the > National Guard and Reserves. Even Kerry, Yale '66 is beginning to see > the danger -- but he's FAR smarter than Gans, Ohio State '54. Kerry obviously learned at lot more than you at Yale though, didn't he? Clearly Professor Gans learned a lot more at college too... > Gans, to the contrary, has NEVER served at ALL in ANY branch of the > Armed Forces... > > Yet he takes potshots at those who have. One does *not* have to serve in the armed forces to take potshots at those who did or do. Nor does one have to be qualified as a doctor to shout "Quack!" I *do not* have to have been an officer in the United States Navy to say you are a sad disgrace and a dismal failure as a Naval Officer David. Nor do I have to be a Judge to say that you are a nasty, jealous, spiteful, small minded, ignorant, hypocritical bastard - and a laughing stock. This is Usenet - live with it! > P. Jonathan Gans is a Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village > Marxist, academic chemist, who teaches at New York University. Perhaps he is - but he's a damned good one, and we like him. Don't you *ever* see what a complete and utter pratt you are david? Cheers Martin ... <your pardon, Martin, for snipping your bits here, as I want to highlight Hines' contemptible behavior> ... > > Gans, to the contrary, has NEVER served at ALL in ANY branch of the > > Armed Forces... I'm not sure, but I suspect this is another one of Hines' deliberate lies and attempts at character-assassination... ... > > P. Jonathan Gans is a Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village > > Marxist, academic chemist, who teaches at New York University. This most definitely a repeat of the lie that Paul is or was a Marxist. It is once more a calumny that Hines will not defend and will not retract when called on it. Poor wannabe J. McCarthy Hines is a slime-bucket. It doesn't matter to me, or to most, what Paul's politics may or may not have been at any time in his past. But it does matter than Hines not be allowed to get away with lying about it in a public forum. From all of the posts I've read from Gans this year, I would agree that Gans is a "Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village Marxist". I live in Madison Wisconsin (USA) and see them ALL OF THE TIME. Left-Wing Marxists thrive in communities like the University of Wisconsin - Madison and New York University and many others. I don't know Gans, have never met him and can only gage his "politics" from his writings. What I don't understand is why Liberals (and Marxists) refuse to admit what they really are and instead hide under labels like "progressive" or "independent thinker". It is also amusing to watch Gans supporters deny the liberal and often Marxist writings of Gans as being either liberal or Marxist. If your a Liberal, or a Marxist for that matter, be proud of that fact, admit it, and argue your points honestly. Dick Yep... As the man says... Vide infra.... Just read what Gans has written ---- over the past SEVEN years.... He's obviously a Radical-Chic Greenwich-Village Marxist. American Socialists don't like to ADMIT what they truly are ---- so they call themselves LIBERALS or PROGRESSIVES or even just DEMOCRATS [as does Gans]. But they are all socialists under the skin just the same ---- and are not fooling anyone but the perennially clueless. DSH | From all of the posts I've read from Gans this year, I would agree | that Gans is a "Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | | Dick > Yep... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But they are all socialists under the skin just the same ---- and are > not fooling anyone but the perennially clueless. But David, you are the eternally clueless! In alt.history.british Martin Reboul <martin@spamfukreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >> Yep... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> But they are all socialists under the skin just the same ---- and are >> not fooling anyone but the perennially clueless. >But David, you are the eternally clueless! It is interesting that I posted a long bit attempting to show that in practice in the west "capitalism" and "socialism" are extremes of the same sort of social organization -- the mixture of free enterprise and government control and operation of some few resources. If Hines ever bothered to dispute my (much longer) presentation, I did not see it. It is much easier to call a person names than to actually put ones views up for public review. ----- Paul J. Gans > From all of the posts I've read from Gans this year, I would agree that > Gans is a "Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't know Gans, have never met him and can only gage his "politics" > from his writings. You don't know him, never met him, and you "gauge" his politics by what he writes here. Yeah. He writes here that he is not a Marxist, and challenges Hines on the lie. Why do you believe a liar who cannot defend his own charges? Your "gauge" is ridiculous, if you have inferred Marxism from anything Paul has written on a newsfroup -- apparently anyone who disagrees with reactionary sentiment is a Marxist, by your definition. Or are you (like Hines) just aping the Dishonorable ex-Senator from your state? I have never seen a Marxist doctrine espoused by Paul. Here, or in person. For the record, since you seem to need hand-holding on these matters, _I_ am a socialist (a Christian socialist), in near despair about the almost total _absence_ of anything remotely resembling a "left wing" in American politics. Paul is quite noticeably to my "right" on most matters (can't think of any where he's left of me). Republicans, starting with Reagan have done a hatchet-job so the word "liberal" has been used as if it were synonymous with "Communist" -- and morons like you seem to have been gulled by the Big Lie technique they use. I am not now, and have never been, a Marxist. I find the whole school of thought simplistic, and the political fallout (that is _not_ the same thing as the original politics of Marxism) utterly deplorable. I thought so with respect to my fellow students of various Trotskyite persuasions in the 60s, and I have no reason to change that opinion now. Without in _any_ way denying (indeed, I celebrate) my leftwing political stance, I would regard an accusation of being a Marxist as an insult and (as Hines is trying to do, and apparently has enlisted you as an ally) a sleazy attempt to do character assassination, which is utterly contemptible in the American context -- and asininely _stupid_ in a newsgroup with a large English and European readership. Hilarious! Siemon -- ANOTHER scruffy little, self-confessed socialist -- sticks his head up out of the swamp of the Leftover Left ---- and squeaks. How Sweet It Is! DSH > From all of the posts I've read from Gans this year, I would agree that > Gans is a "Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what they really are and instead hide under labels like "progressive" or > "independent thinker". I don't think Paul has ever denied he's a 'liberal' - obviously he is. Marxist however, implies some devotion to Marxism and a belief in the the teachings and theories of Karl Marx - he isn't that naive, old fashioned, idealistic or stupid to believe in all of those, I'm pretty sure of that > It is also amusing to watch Gans supporters deny the liberal and often > Marxist writings of Gans as being either liberal or Marxist. Who would that be I wonder? These words are bandied about as if to be a liberal or a Marxist was some sort of crime? I certainly don't think that, though I can see why some might be offended by being called 'Marxist', as I would be offended by bein accused of rascism. They're just words and nobody should care. Nor should anyone follow some rigidly defined political creed or dogma - personally I like bits and pieces from many, and adapt and adjust them as necessary as the world changes around me. Is that bad? > If your a Liberal, or a Marxist for that matter, be proud of that fact, > admit it, and argue your points honestly. I'd say, no need to state that fact or be classified - just say what you think and be proud of that. Cheers Martin > I don't know Gans, have never met him and can only gage his "politics" > from his writings. > What I don't understand is why Liberals (and Marxists) refuse to admit > what they really are and instead hide under labels like "progressive" or > "independent thinker". > It is also amusing to watch Gans supporters deny the liberal and often > Marxist writings of Gans as being either liberal or Marxist. Well Paul is distinctly right of me and I'm *very* soft socialist. He'd fit in quite well with the intelligent 'centre of the road' here who could actually vote Conservative, LibDem, or Labour - but certainly not as left-wing as the Scots Nats nor would he fit in with the middle-left wing of the Labour Party. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines > Well Paul is distinctly right of me and I'm *very* soft socialist. He'd fit > in quite well with the intelligent 'centre of the road' here who could > actually vote Conservative, LibDem, or Labour - but certainly not as > left-wing as the Scots Nats nor would he fit in with the middle-left wing > of the Labour Party. He seems to me a very 'Blairite' sort of left winger. In other words someone who'd vote for a Tory 'One Nation' government. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government In alt.history.british William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Well Paul is distinctly right of me and I'm *very* soft socialist. He'd >fit >> in quite well with the intelligent 'centre of the road' here who could >> actually vote Conservative, LibDem, or Labour - but certainly not as >> left-wing as the Scots Nats nor would he fit in with the middle-left wing >> of the Labour Party. >He seems to me a very 'Blairite' sort of left winger. >In other words someone who'd vote for a Tory 'One Nation' government. Hey, aren't I allowed to at least read the UK papers before I chose a party? Which ones are the ones with the interesting "page three"? ---- Paul J. Gans > In alt.history.british William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Well Paul is distinctly right of me and I'm *very* soft socialist. > >> He'd fit in quite well with the intelligent 'centre of the road' here > >> who could actually vote Conservative, LibDem, or Labour - but > >> certainly not as left-wing as the Scots Nats nor would he fit in with > >> the middle-left wing of the Labour Party. > >He seems to me a very 'Blairite' sort of left winger. > >In other words someone who'd vote for a Tory 'One Nation' government. > Hey, aren't I allowed to at least read the UK papers before I chose a > party? > Which ones are the ones with the interesting "page three"? the ones that make up your mind for you ;-( I'm afraid you're restricted to The Guardian, the Independent and The Times - though I'm very doubtful about the last as the editors keep getting it confused with the Sun (with the interesting...) SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines >> In alt.history.british William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Well Paul is distinctly right of me and I'm *very* soft socialist. >> >> He'd fit in quite well with the intelligent 'centre of the road' here >> >> who could actually vote Conservative, LibDem, or Labour - but >> >> certainly not as left-wing as the Scots Nats nor would he fit in with >> >> the middle-left wing of the Labour Party. >> >He seems to me a very 'Blairite' sort of left winger. >> >In other words someone who'd vote for a Tory 'One Nation' government. >> Hey, aren't I allowed to at least read the UK papers before I chose a >> party? >> Which ones are the ones with the interesting "page three"? >the ones that make up your mind for you ;-( >I'm afraid you're restricted to The Guardian, the Independent and The Times >- though I'm very doubtful about the last as the editors keep getting it >confused with the Sun (with the interesting...) Then I'll certainly read the Sun. Got to keep up with what the common man is interested in. I suspect that spending time in pubs would also be required. It's all part of my research to see what position to take on UK issues. ---- Paul J. Gans > > Which ones are the ones with the interesting "page three"? Everyone except Thatcher, I think, and maybe her too! Surreyman > What I don't understand is why Liberals (and Marxists) refuse to admit > what they really are and instead hide under labels like "progressive" or > "independent thinker". Please define the words 'Liberal' and 'Marxist' Because you're confusing the issue with your fuzzt definitons. In the UK a 'Liberal' is someone who is a member of the 'Lideral Democratic' political party, a Marxist is a follower of the works of Karl Marx, a nineteenth century political philosopher. There aren't many Marxists these days... SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > It is also amusing to watch Gans supporters deny the liberal and often > Marxist writings of Gans as being either liberal or Marxist. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dick :... :> > Gans, to the contrary, has NEVER served at ALL in ANY branch of the :> > Armed Forces... : :I'm not sure, but I suspect this is another one of Hines' deliberate :lies and attempts at character-assassination... I'd bet it's a true statement, whatever the intent of making it. :... :> > P. Jonathan Gans is a Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :It is once more a calumny that Hines will not defend and will not :retract when called on it. Sorry, but Gans himself made a comment that implied that he was. Something to the effect of something have 'broken' Marxism for true Marxists and "we will never be able to fix it". He denied that he was the very next day. Frankly, I don't care about either Gans' military service or how far left his politics are. He's an inconstant lying idiot. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > :... > :> > Gans, to the contrary, has NEVER served at ALL in ANY branch of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'd bet it's a true statement, whatever the intent of making it. A "true statement" from D Spencer Hines eh! Tell us Fred, have you ever heard the old saying : 'A fool and his money are soon parted'...? It could be valuable advice if you intend making any more 'bets' old chap... :... > :> > P. Jonathan Gans is a Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village > :> > Marxist, academic chemist, who teaches at New York University. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Something to the effect of something have 'broken' Marxism for true > Marxists and "we will never be able to fix it". Why don't you go and find it, then come back when you have read and understood what he was saying Fred? > He denied that he was the very next day. > > Frankly, I don't care about either Gans' military service or how far > left his politics are. He's an inconstant lying idiot. This is not so Fred, he is remarkable consistent - you have an incredible nerve and cheek to make such a statement! The sad thing is, I don't even think you are lying, you are merely an idiot and a very obvious idiot at that. > "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar > territory." Do you know where you are then Fred? Cheers Martin In alt.history.british Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: >:... >:> > Gans, to the contrary, has NEVER served at ALL in ANY branch of the >:> > Armed Forces... >: >:I'm not sure, but I suspect this is another one of Hines' deliberate >:lies and attempts at character-assassination... >I'd bet it's a true statement, whatever the intent of making it. >:... >:> > P. Jonathan Gans is a Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >:It is once more a calumny that Hines will not defend and will not >:retract when called on it. >Sorry, but Gans himself made a comment that implied that he was. >Something to the effect of something have 'broken' Marxism for true >Marxists and "we will never be able to fix it". >He denied that he was the very next day. >Frankly, I don't care about either Gans' military service or how far >left his politics are. He's an inconstant lying idiot. Well, I suspect that you don't recall the context of what I said. The "we" in that sentence meant the human race. Once a useful term has been rendered useless by continual redefinition, it becomes basically meaningless. To that end try to define Marxism, Feudalism, Democracy, morality, etc., in terms that most people will accept. You will find this very hard. People "broke" the term "Marxism" and we (the people) will never be able to turn in back into a meaningful term again. Today, when you want to talk about (Karl) Marxism, you have to specify, just as you do if you want to talk about (Stalinist) Marxism, etc. In political discourse even the term "lie" has become debased. For you, most any presentation of material that contradicts your statements is a "lie". I'm sure that you think that so, but I'm not sure all would agree with you. ---- Paul J. Gans In alt.history.british Michael Siemon <mlsiemon@sonic.net> wrote: >... ><your pardon, Martin, for snipping your bits here, as I want to >highlight Hines' contemptible behavior> >... >> > Gans, to the contrary, has NEVER served at ALL in ANY branch of the >> > Armed Forces... >I'm not sure, but I suspect this is another one of Hines' deliberate >lies and attempts at character-assassination... >... >> > P. Jonathan Gans is a Left-Wing, radical-chic, Greenwich-Village >> > Marxist, academic chemist, who teaches at New York University. >This most definitely a repeat of the lie that Paul is or was a Marxist. >It is once more a calumny that Hines will not defend and will not >retract when called on it. >Poor wannabe J. McCarthy Hines is a slime-bucket. >It doesn't matter to me, or to most, what Paul's politics may >or may not have been at any time in his past. But it does matter >than Hines not be allowed to get away with lying about it in a >public forum. Thank you. He seems to relish being a public liar. The term is often used when one person does not like the political opinions of another, but this is not a political opinion. The claim is that I am a Marxist. Where is the proof? I'll answer the question of military service. I was a misfit. I was too young for World War II, in college during Korea, and too old for Vietnam. I took my required ROTC (reserve officer training corps) training in college and got very high marks, especially in marksmanship where I rather amazed my instructor (active duty army NCO) by learning to shoot right-handed while being a left-hander and doing very well at it. I was, like many others, a firm supporter of the Vietnamese war. Time and actual events changed my mind as they did to many others. Unlike most others though I will readily admit that I was pro-war for several years. I took a fair amount of guff for it, but hey, you get that no matter what one's opinion. ----- Paul J. Gans In alt.history.british Surreyman <spencer@opps-press.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in message >news:c0k899$24v$9@reader2.panix.com... >> But I'm not looking forward to >> (almost) nine months of rancor. >> >Better not get 'er pregnant, then! :-)) >For what it's worth, from an outsider, seems to me that both sides in the >'service' dispute are going off to extremes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >He was rather silly to make his service a discussion point, though. >Overall, he gets a few minus points from me. The story goes back to the *last* campaign. It came up then when Bush was wrapping himself in the flag and claiming military service as opposed to the draft-dodging democrats. So it is one of those revenge things. But don't worry. It will all get much worse. ---- Paul J. Gans :In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: :>"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : :Martin's got all the luck. Yes, well I tend to give insane bigots pretty short shrift. Mere loons like you get a bit more tolerance. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > :In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: > :>"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, well I tend to give insane bigots pretty short shrift. Mere > loons like you get a bit more tolerance. Fred - I am starting to find you mildly irritating. Do we have another Seppo the Clown here? How tiresome... > "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar > territory." > --G. Behn Is this some relative of Tony Benh? > Fred - I am starting to find you mildly irritating. > Do we have another Seppo the Clown here? > How tiresome... I tellya, the neighborhood's completely going to pot here... > > Fred - I am starting to find you mildly irritating. > > Do we have another Seppo the Clown here? > > How tiresome... > > I tellya, the neighborhood's completely going to pot here... He seems a bit confused, but I didn't think that was the reason? You never can tell! Cheers Martin :> Fred - I am starting to find you mildly irritating. :> Do we have another Seppo the Clown here? :> How tiresome... : :I tellya, the neighborhood's completely going to pot here... Feel free to move out, Drew. Your absence would appreciably raise the average intelligence of what gets posted. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn Fred J. McCall muttered.... > Feel free to move out, Drew. Your absence would appreciably raise the > average intelligence of what gets posted. Look at it this way, Fred. That Drew and Martin have each other is what counts. On the other hand, I suppose it's well that they do, in combination almost rising to a level at which an individual would have been classified as only slightly exceeding borderline retardation. I'm always amused by the self-aggrandizing (in this case mutual, "Rub my back some more, Marty!") of folks whose eforts in behalf of civilization, its improval or survival have not extended beyonf moralistic pontification, while standing on a platform of a half-dozen partly read books and newspapers, badly chosen. TMO > Fred J. McCall muttered.... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > while standing on a platform of a half-dozen partly read books and > newspapers, badly chosen. I can't speak for Drew of course, but 'moralistic pontification' by patronising, smug and arrogant fools is something I reckon we both loathe, which is why we deride, mock or take the piss out of it when we see it. There is no need for mutual back scratching either, perhaps you have confused out mutual intolerance of intolerance as that (thiough I can't see why?). As for your accusation that we are poorly read, naive and are less than 'worldly wise', I have to tell you that you are very wrong about that too - if I don't know anything about a subject, I don't hide the fact or argue about it with those who do. No shame in that. I am here to learn primarily, share what I do know in discussion and have a bit of fun. If that is at the expense of a few pouty, indignant, humourless and pompous fools, so be it - their arrogance lets them down. Of course, what you describe as 'self-aggrandizement' is a danger one has to accept when one is almost always proved right - I try to keep my ego in check, but thanks for the warning! I'd not like to ever be thought of as 'pompous'.... dear me! Cheers Martin In alt.history.british Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: >:In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: >:>"Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >: >:Martin's got all the luck. >Yes, well I tend to give insane bigots pretty short shrift. Mere >loons like you get a bit more tolerance. One day you'll learn about Martin. He's English, you see and so apt to get a much clearer picture of things than we do in the US. And he's got a sense of humor. A sense of humor is good. Being able to make fun, even of yourself, is a civilizing gift. I'd suggest you try to cultivate it but alas, by the time we are adults it is usually too late. ---- Paul J. Gans :In alt.history.british Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: :> :>Yes, well I tend to give insane bigots pretty short shrift. Mere :>loons like you get a bit more tolerance. : :One day you'll learn about Martin. I don't see why. :He's English, you see :and so apt to get a much clearer picture of things than we :do in the US. Great Nation Chauvinism in this day and age, Dr Ganser? Contrary to your opinion, merely being English and a leftist academic gives no special wisdom, knowledge, or analytical ability. In fact, looking at their news organizations, the English would seem to be even less informed than the average American (which I am not). :And he's got a sense of humor. A sense of humor is good. :Being able to make fun, even of yourself, is a civilizing :gift. I'd suggest you try to cultivate it but alas, by the :time we are adults it is usually too late. My sense of humour is fine. However, there are no doubt just things that I don't find particularly humourous or 'clever'. Perhaps this is because I know more than you do (or Martin does) about the real world, Dr Ganser. And I'm not talking about the one they write up in the history books. SignatureYou have never lived until you have almost died. Life has a special meaning that the protected will never know. Not sure why my spell checker (or whatever did it) decided to replace your name with 'Ganser' everywhere (which doesn't seem to me to be a word, either). Just parse it as 'Gans' everywhere you see it. >Not sure why my spell checker (or whatever did it) decided to replace >your name with 'Ganser' everywhere (which doesn't seem to me to be a >word, either). > >Just parse it as 'Gans' everywhere you see it. There are individuals here that do such things on purpose. It's worse for me, all Agent has is a US spell checker and I find it rather tedious. Fail to spell check and you-know-who will spot it. -- Julian Richards julian-richards "at" ntlworld.com Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. > :In alt.history.british Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote: > :> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Great Nation Chauvinism in this day and age, Dr Ganser? Contrary to > your opinion, merely being English and a leftist academic... Is he talking about *me*? >... gives no > special wisdom, knowledge, or analytical ability. In fact, looking at > their news organizations, the English would seem to be even less > informed than the average American (which I am not). Not what - average, American or informed Fred? > :And he's got a sense of humor. A sense of humor is good. > :Being able to make fun, even of yourself, is a civilizing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Dr Ganser. And I'm not talking about the one they write up in the > history books. You make too many assumptions Fred - how do you know what I've seen of the world? Your narrow minded, blinkered peek at it has obviously taught you little - that is reflected in your stodgy, prim, prudish, authoritarian, patronising, arrogant and uncompromising attitude and manner. I see no evidence of any sense of humour whatsoever either - so far. > You have never lived until you have almost died. Been there - done it. Came back... sorry Fred, I had work to do. > Life has a special meaning that the protected will never know. Time you tried living it then I reckon? Cheers Martin > "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> > > ...is simply too stupid to bother with. Thank you Fred - I think you're full of wit and wisdom too! > > I assume he got his wings then? That would of been handy when he went into > > battle I suppose, having been so keen to fly fighters. Where was that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Brooks Brooks the Bush a.s Licker on the other hand could never fly as he insists on using only a right wing. > > I assume he got his wings then? That would of been handy when he went into > > battle I suppose, having been so keen to fly fighters. Where was that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > again that rational thought process is not a prerequisite for gaining access > to Usenet. It's simply pure _luck_ that he was assigned to a plane that was being phased out, then? Must have been nice. SignatureDrew ---- "This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance, with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world. It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility, as individuals and organizations, to resist this." -- Mary Heaton Vorse > > > I assume he got his wings then? That would of been handy when he went > into [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's simply pure _luck_ that he was assigned to a plane that was being > phased out, then? When he was originally assigned to the unit, which was the closest thing he had to a hometown unit (and most NG personnel sign up with their nearest unit if possible), it was not "being phased out then", and it was more coincidental that the F-102 was the plane assigned to that unit (unless you think he had something to do with assigning that type to the unit a few years earlier, right?). In fact, his outfit later became the training site for F-102 pilots. FYI, the last F-102 left the ANG in 1975-76 timeframe (HIANG). And yes, in the Guard you fly the aircraft assigned to the unit you are in, even if it is destined for retirement (as all aircraft are at some point). I guess you consider all F-102 pilots as shirkers? > Must have been nice. Well, how many hours of fast jet time have YOU logged? H'mmm...it appears GWB was willing to go further into harms way than you have, huh? Brooks Oh, it's more than that. These pogues consider ANYONE who served in the National Guard was a shirker. It's beginning to dawn on Kerry that there are one HELL of a lot of VOTERS who served in the National Guard -- and he and his Dim Dem handlers have just put them in the same category as draft dodgers ---- e.g., alongside one Bubba Clinton -- who actually led Anti-War rallies on foreign soil ---- in Britain. 'Brer' George has just been saying "throw me in that briar patch" ---- and the extremely stupid Democrats went right ahead and did it. MANY veterans have no use at all for Kerry. Kerry was urging Congress to cut and run and floating rumors on atrocities, things he never witnessed, while many of us were still fighting that war. John Edwards reportedly got more veterans' votes in South Carolina than did Kerry. "Hippo" in Charleston can tell us more. DSH | > > > I assume he got his wings then? That would of been handy when he went | > into [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] | > -- | > Drew > Oh, it's more than that. > > These pogues consider ANYONE who served in the National Guard was a > shirker. Nope. You are a liar. > It's beginning to dawn on Kerry that there are one HELL of a lot of > VOTERS who served in the National Guard -- and he and his Dim Dem > handlers have just put them in the same category as draft dodgers ---- > e.g., alongside one Bubba Clinton -- who actually led Anti-War rallies > on foreign soil ---- in Britain. Nope. Liar. The only deserters are those who refused to actually accept the responsibilities they signed up for. Na |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message