From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 5 Aug 2006 16:30 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 5 Aug 2006 16:37 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 5 Aug 2006 16:37 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 5 Aug 2006 16:39 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 5 Aug 2006 16:42
"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) |