From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on
John Fields wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:44:59 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> So, you're soft on Islamic terrorism...
>
> ---
> I'm not soft on _any_ brand of terrorism, as you should be well
> aware of by now, but it seems to me that that's not really what
> matters to you, what you're interested in doping is needling me.
> Why is that?
>

Because I smell hypocrisy in your vicinity.

Dirk
From: Phat Bytestard on
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 21:22:10 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> Gave us:

>Well, maybe by 2040, but there are some real oldies still flying now.
>WW1 stuff.


"still in service" does not refer to "owned by some dude, and he
still flies it". It refers to still being in military service.

There is an old wooden warship that is "still commissioned".
It follows the same line.

I guess I could have worded it better.
From: Eeyore on


Phat Bytestard wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 17:15:12 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken
> Smith) Gave us:
>
> >Yes, tax dollars were used to develop the aircraft. Tax dollars are also
> >used in the development phase.
>
> Nope. The aircraft contest was funded by the individual companies
> own research coffers.
>
> The finished product is all our boys and the rest of the allies are
> paying for.

Actually, the only phase paid for by the contractors was the initial concept
demonstrator.

Graham


From: Eeyore on


Phat Bytestard wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:47:40 -0700, John Larkin
> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:
>
> >The B-52's are scheduled to be retired in 2040, at which time they'll
> >be 80 years old.
> >
>
> As the oldest still in service airframe in history.

DC3 ?

Graham


From: Frank Bemelman on
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news:14r9d2ldb9qah9lovh4ke8esggi3m1clv9(a)4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:20:24 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
> <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
>>
>>No, but about half the polulace voted so that the electors had a
>>good chance keeping him in the saddle. In my book, that is the same.
>
> ---
> Half a nation of fools is the same as a nation of fools?
> ---

Yes, one can safely say that. The average nation has only
5% of fools, that's all normal and to be expected. With
50% of fools (a factor of 10) an exageration by a factor
of 2 isn't such a big deal.

But, I settle for 'half a nation of fools' if that makes
you happier.

Of course, now that we agree on that, it raises all kinds
of other questions.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)