New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 17:09 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:39:06 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > > > > > >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 ? > > Show me where that is used in military service. > > BTW, before you even go there... "still in service" refers to > military utilization. No it *doesn't*. That would be "still in service use" meaning used by the services. In service simply means 'operated'. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 17:15 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:28:08 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Except, of course, that Britain stood alone when it mattered and the US > >did not. > > --- > "When it mattered?" Don't be absurd. As far as you know we got > there just in time. I guess he might be referring to the Battle of Britain ? Had Britain fallen there wouldn't even have been a party to come to, never mind arrive late. Graham
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 17:59 On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:29:58 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <7mg7d2d0php4ti2vnnotee89pfuahp8dde(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >>I don't know who you mean. > >I think you (or is it JT?) call them 'demoncrats'. --- Call me thick, but I still can't grasp the relationship. That is, I don't get it. Clue? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 18:00 On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:32:06 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <l3i7d2t6hnppubng26c12m121klnu976pd(a)4ax.com>, dated Fri, 4 >Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > >>I see no reason why presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be >>carried out on-line where the result would truly be popular. > >The reason is that 'big money' would lose a great deal of its present >control over the result. --- That's why they _aren't_ , not why they couldn't be. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 5 Aug 2006 18:02
John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:38:32 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >>> >>>> I note that the US is keen to get 60 million Muslims into the EU, >>>> against the wishes of the vast majority of its people. >>> And just in case you don't get it: >>> http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/15924.htm >>> >>> "As President Bush said to Mr. Erdogan just two days ago, the U.S., >>> although not part of the EU, supports Turkey's bid for accession. " >>> >>> And you think the US has the best interests of Europe at heart eh? > > --- > No, the best interests of the world, as _opposed_ to provincial > little Europe who can't even let all of Europe into the EU without > squabbling, LOL! > --- Look at a map. Turkey is no more in Europe than Spain is in Africa Dirk |