New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 05:46 krw wrote: > In article <4jvfi3F9tmn1U1(a)individual.net>, dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com > says... > > John Larkin wrote: > > > > > > > >> and the U.K. is almost as old-fashioned, though > > >> at least they have some fairly effective rules for stopping excessive > > >> election advertising. > > > > > > Some very bright and thoughtful people have argued that there is no > > > such thing as excessive election advertising. Our Supreme Court has > > > found that restricting election advertising is in violation of our > > > constitutional right to free speech. > > > > Hardly 'free' is it? > > Not as in "beer", no. There _are_ more important things than "free > beer". Where's this free beer you mention ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 05:54 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:35:47 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >> We fire bombed Dresden for the UK. We didn't need no stinkin' > >> bombsights. It was at night, and we dropped a huge salvo. > > > >There was no " for the UK " about it. > > Not true. So how about you provide some evidence for your claim ? Graham
From: John Woodgate on 10 Aug 2006 05:44 In message <25tld2ldt4hmkdfoeu5pol46o2lpu387p9(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> writes > You left out Burroughs. Because he wasn't Wellcome, of course. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 05:59 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 06:48:58 +0100, John Woodgate > <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> Gave us: > > >In message <iogid2pd7udgeknltr9q8osf4nmvumuikr(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 9 > >Aug 2006, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> writes > > > >> We fire bombed Dresden for the UK. We didn't need no stinkin' > >>bombsights. It was at night, and we dropped a huge salvo. > > > >I don't think the US did any night bombing at that time; it was RAF at > >night and USAAF in daylight, suffering large losses. > > Dresden, in particular, was a night raid, and was a US operation. Wrong yet again. Go and read it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II And then shut up. Graham
From: Eeyore on 10 Aug 2006 06:04
Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:33:06 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> Gave us: > > >Eeyore wrote: > >> > >> Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:21:30 +0100, Eeyore > >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > >>> > >>>> As did the USA with their Norden bombsight that didn't actually > >>>> deliver the goods in practice. > >>> That would be Norton. > >> > >> No it wouldn't. Can't get anything right as usual...... > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight > >> > >> > >>> We fire bombed Dresden for the UK. We didn't need no stinkin' > >>> bombsights. It was at night, and we dropped a huge salvo. > >> > >> There was no " for the UK " about it. > >> > >> Graham > >> > >It was actually 'for' the USSR according to documents from the time. > > You're an idiot. It was a retaliation for the V-2s into London. > > We did not speak with the USSR at the time, and certainly didn't plan > and carry out operations for them. " As early as 1943, the Allies and Russians had begun high-level consultations for the conduct of the war against Germany It was the specific Russian request for bombing communications, coupled with the emphasis on forcing troops to shift from west to east through communications centers, that led to the Allied bombings of Dresden " https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm You are simply *continually* wrong about the Dresden raids. Graham |