New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2006 13:42 On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 19:16:21 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <0c9cd292abu74vqgd0p28idl41ai8a20cv(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 6 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> >writes >>US Army trained pilots were temporarily relieved of their comissions so >>that they could "volunteer" to fight with the RAF. That took official >>approval at, as they say, "the highest levels." Once the US was >>officially in the war, they rejoined the US Army Air Force. > >No. The link to the Wikipedia account was posted; it does not confirm >your opinion. I thought I'd read that in one of my (many) BoB books. Sorry if I'm wrong. Last time I was in Oxford, I did pick up a beautiful old book on the Spitfire, complete with blueprints. John
From: John Fields on 7 Aug 2006 13:45 On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:29:59 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <+47JyKiBLj1EFwXG(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk>, >John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>In message <o9acd251rduj8aq0bpokflotbu9np685f6(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 6 >>Aug 2006, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> writes >>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:57:43 -0500, John Fields >>><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >>> >>>>Can't you understand the difference between a bullet and a >>>>thermonuclear weapon? >>> >>> He obviously cannot. >> >>Well they are probably of similar shape. You need to know how far away >>the object is to be sure of the size. (;-) > >One makes you dead and the other .... um ... er ... um .. er :) --- Makes _everybody_ dead. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Phat Bytestard on 7 Aug 2006 13:48 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:49:27 GMT, joseph2k <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> Gave us: >Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:56:51 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >>>" ONE of our delivery devices is the Trident II, and it is far more >>>advanced than its ancestor. " Clearly implying you thought we had the >>>previous version. >> >> Not at all. You are the idiot that said trident, not trident II. > >Maybe the poster was trying to compare Trident to Polaris, ignoring the in >between Posiedon generation. Not to mention Trident III's are already >obsolete and being phased out. Trident II is a missile. Trident III is an investment group, idiot.
From: Phat Bytestard on 7 Aug 2006 13:54 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:56:47 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > >> > Jim Yanik wrote: >> > >> > > John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in >> > > news:UIZDeWgKGj1EFww$@jmwa.demon.co.uk: >> > > >> > > > In message <92acd2ti8n9opnthr1fd7d3imis3ah08vt(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 6 >> > > > Aug 2006, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> writes >> > > > >> > > >>Iran is trying to make nukes. Not for protection of their nation, but >> > > >>so they can USE them. >> > > >> > > Nuclear WEAPONS,not power plants;they really don't need nuclear power >> > > generating plants. >> > >> > I find it curious how 'Washington' feels it's its business to dictate what power >> > sources another country should use. >> > >> > By the same token, the USA should shut down all its own reactors. >> > >> > Graham >> >> You should stop wasting oxygen, so stop breathing. > >The absence of an intelligent response is noted. > You'd be crushed by the weight of the container that the number of times you have scored in this arena tallied.
From: Phat Bytestard on 7 Aug 2006 13:55
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 07:01:43 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:56:51 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >" ONE of our delivery devices is the Trident II, and it is far more advanced than its ancestor. " >> >Clearly implying you thought we had the previous version. >> >> Not at all. You are the idiot that said trident, not trident II. > >We call our nuclear ballistic fleet the 'Trident subs' not the Trident 2 subs' ! > >What is your point ? > You're retarded. The sub name does not change with the iteration of the hardware it fires. You have no point. |