sci.military.naval
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en

sci.military.naval@goog...

Today's topics:

* British BB post WW1 - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/2d3a9d218fd95f74?hl=en
* Socialism great idea - 10 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/4d8919d1ce878a5e?hl=en
* Frequency hopping - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/5c3d99706a2eb871?hl=en
* Af/Pak & Other News (11/26/2011) - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/a3f463cd3c456b93?hl=en
* Q : BB62 - 1943 Displacement - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/3fd493a08fd1768f?hl=en
* Af/Pak & Other News (11/28/2011) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/da88337c5fb7a0b4?hl=en
* I DEMAND I BE HEARD DEMANDING SOME SELF RESPECT HERE - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/916c21742c7cf65c?hl=en
* HMCS Regina in Vancouver at Canada Place 2011.11.26-27 - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/cea26e2bebaa2599?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: British BB post WW1
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/2d3a9d218fd95f74?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 27 2011 11:38 pm
From: Fred J. McCall  


"Paul J. Adam" <paul.j.adam@gmai...> wrote:

>On 20/11/2011 05:27, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Paul J. Adam"<paul.j.adam@gmai...>  wrote:
>>> Interesting indeed. Jane's _used_ to state much higher (27nm as late as
>>> 2008) and have since revised it significantly downwards. Wonder why? Is
>>> it because an early press release claimed 50km and hardly anyone asked
>>> any questions?
>>
>> I'd suggest that Jane's lowering the number when apparently nobody
>> else has indicates someone told them to.
>
>Or, they got a better "about this far..." figure from someone, or - as
>has happened in other cases - someone with some technical know-how sat
>down and did a bit of informed what-iffery.
>

And they're the only ones?  And they left their text inconsistent with
all this new information/analysis?

>
>> I'd be interested in just what 'early press release' would have given
>> a range.  I know that ours typically don't give numbers, particularly
>> for new weapons.
>
>It's _slightly_ suspicious to me that the early, and still widely held,
>"twenty-seven nautical miles" is _so_ exactly 50km.
>

That doesn't address my question.  It's also pretty irrelevant, since
the figure is quoted with a '+' and nobody has claimed it is the
actual classified range.

>
>It's like my reporting my income to the IRS as US$157,951 for the year -
>sounds wonderfully precise, unless you realise I just fed £100,000 and
>some wishful thinking into a currency converter.
>
>Someone says "why, as far as fifty kilometres or so is possible" and
>shashkablooey! there's the Official Guaranteed Range Figure.
>

'Somebody'?  So you're just electing to use the figure from the odd
man out?  What makes their 'somebody' so much more reliable in your
mind than everyone else's 'somebody'?

>
>>> You mean that open-source numbers aren't absolutely reliable? Who'd have
>>> ever thought it?
>>
>> But one could at least expect them to be consistent with THEMSELVES if
>> they're to be given any credence.
>
>Depends how much credence you want to give them. As usual, the *actual*
>range of a missile depends entirely on the engagement: the same weapon
>might succeed at twenty miles and fail at two in different vignettes.
>

Very little credence and it's not based on 'want'.  Someone
contradicting themselves gets less credence than those who do not,
regardless of 'want'.

Is that why you're selecting the 'odd man out' on the range figures?
Based on 'want'?

>
>> Are you claiming to be arguing from classified numbers?
>
>I don't actually know the classified numbers in terms like "outer
>intercept boundary". I know where and how ESSM engagements have fallen
>over in challenging engagements, but I don't know to much more than an
>order of magnitude what it can achieve for easier shots.
>
>Back to the problem of "define what you mean by range" - I can twist
>things horribly just by how I choose the engagement for each figure.
>

So we're down to 'want' and 'twisting' in your case?  Good to know, I
guess, but it pretty much puts an end to rational discussion.

>> If not, why
>> wouldn't you use figures from the preponderance of sources rather than
>> picking and choosing?
>
>Because the forum I was just hosting, is sharing scenarios and data via
>e-mail which means we need to stay unclassified - but we also want to
>stay within sight and earshot of the truth. (The days and travel budgets
>when you could get a 5EYES research team together more than once or
>twice a year, are sadly gone...)
>
>Hence some debate over which systems to represent, with what fidelity,
>and where to draw data from.
>

And how is this a reason for NOT using the numbers that appear in a
preponderance of sources?  

>>> Still, Jane's must be being conservative, or else Sea Sparrow was
>>> horribly traduced, if it turns out that Sea Sparrow used to be able to
>>> reliably knock down targets at 13-14nm range (half that generally
>>> claimed for ESSM).
>>
>> Public figures are probably low.  Having said that, I find claims for
>> range for NSSM from a preposterously low 6 nm to a ridiculously high
>> 50 nm.  Range for the RIM-7P (the latest version) I generally find at
>> ... wait for it ... 13.8 nm.
>
>Back to the problem of "define the engagement". Go back a few versions,
>and AIM-7E was credited with a range of 16nm... if launched from an
>aircraft flying Mach 2, at an equally fast target closing head-on, both
>aircraft at 50,000 feet. If the engagement was identical except for the
>target flying _away_ then range dropped to 3nm at most.
>

You don't generally shoot point defense weapons at opening targets,
since they're not a threat.

>
>The *really* important figure in the real world is "how close must I
>keep the MEU I'm protecting?" and that generally bears very little
>resemblance to any headline "engagement range" values. ESSM does well
>there, but then that's what it was designed and bought for rather than
>long-range aircraft plinking.
>

That's all very nice, but it's also all very irrelevant to the point
of the discussion.

You remember what I do for a living, right, Paul?  Do you frequently
try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?

--
"So many women.  So little charm."
          -- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing




== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 12:59 am
From: "Paul J. Adam"  


On 28/11/2011 07:38, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam"<paul.j.adam@gmai...>  wrote:
>> Or, they got a better "about this far..." figure from someone, or - as
>> has happened in other cases - someone with some technical know-how sat
>> down and did a bit of informed what-iffery.
>
> And they're the only ones?  And they left their text inconsistent with
> all this new information/analysis?

It seems so, yes. I'm not privy to the internal discussions, just
observing the changes in the publications.

>> It's _slightly_ suspicious to me that the early, and still widely held,
>> "twenty-seven nautical miles" is _so_ exactly 50km.
>
> That doesn't address my question.  It's also pretty irrelevant, since
> the figure is quoted with a '+' and nobody has claimed it is the
> actual classified range.

Fred, there *is* no "actual classified range" - that's the point you
keep choosing to miss. Change the geometry, change the range. Change the
target, change the range. Change the target's *reactions*, change the
range.

You're meant to know this stuff.

>> It's like my reporting my income to the IRS as US$157,951 for the year -
>> sounds wonderfully precise, unless you realise I just fed £100,000 and
>> some wishful thinking into a currency converter.
>>
>> Someone says "why, as far as fifty kilometres or so is possible" and
>> shashkablooey! there's the Official Guaranteed Range Figure.
>
> 'Somebody'?  So you're just electing to use the figure from the odd
> man out?

Actually, it's not *my* call - I did point that out.

What makes their 'somebody' so much more reliable in your
> mind than everyone else's 'somebody'?

For the engagements we're modelling, the ESSM users preferred the
current Jane's figures to the older "fifty kilometres! woo!" numbers.

>> Depends how much credence you want to give them. As usual, the *actual*
>> range of a missile depends entirely on the engagement: the same weapon
>> might succeed at twenty miles and fail at two in different vignettes.
>
> Very little credence and it's not based on 'want'.  Someone
> contradicting themselves gets less credence than those who do not,
> regardless of 'want'.

Which is why "open sources" are not reliable for representing actual
system performance in a fairly narrowly bounded class of engagments.

> Is that why you're selecting the 'odd man out' on the range figures?
> Based on 'want'?

No, the RIM-162 users chose the number as a better approximation - and
it's only an approximation - of performance for the system that we could
pass back and forth on unclasssified lines. For more detail, they picked
a particular weapon model that ships with the unclassified SADM
installation as a decent representation of ESSM.

I didn't choose it, they did.

>> I don't actually know the classified numbers in terms like "outer
>> intercept boundary". I know where and how ESSM engagements have fallen
>> over in challenging engagements, but I don't know to much more than an
>> order of magnitude what it can achieve for easier shots.
>>
>> Back to the problem of "define what you mean by range" - I can twist
>> things horribly just by how I choose the engagement for each figure.
>
> So we're down to 'want' and 'twisting' in your case?

Not at the moment, but we could be if you like. Do you want a civil
conversation, or are you filling your pockets with faeces again?

Why, if that's the game then Sea Dart has a range of well over a hundred
miles and has _really_ been undersold all its life. If you know guided
weapons then you shouldn't need to be told this.

>> Because the forum I was just hosting, is sharing scenarios and data via
>> e-mail which means we need to stay unclassified - but we also want to
>> stay within sight and earshot of the truth. (The days and travel budgets
>> when you could get a 5EYES research team together more than once or
>> twice a year, are sadly gone...)
>>
>> Hence some debate over which systems to represent, with what fidelity,
>> and where to draw data from.
>
> And how is this a reason for NOT using the numbers that appear in a
> preponderance of sources?

Because "you can routinely delete any target you see out to a range of
fifty kilometres" so badly misrepresents the system and its
capabilities, that any work based on that claim becomes worthless. Just
because a particular number is attractive and widely cited, doesn't make
it correct or useful.

The current Jane's figure is considerably more appropriate for the
engagements of interest in that forum, if only because they're
horizon-limited.

>> Back to the problem of "define the engagement". Go back a few versions,
>> and AIM-7E was credited with a range of 16nm... if launched from an
>> aircraft flying Mach 2, at an equally fast target closing head-on, both
>> aircraft at 50,000 feet. If the engagement was identical except for the
>> target flying _away_ then range dropped to 3nm at most.
>
> You don't generally shoot point defense weapons at opening targets,
> since they're not a threat.

If your weapon has "a range you can rely on" of fifty kilometres then it
most definitely isn't a point-defence system - which was the argument I
was making from the start.

>> The *really* important figure in the real world is "how close must I
>> keep the MEU I'm protecting?" and that generally bears very little
>> resemblance to any headline "engagement range" values. ESSM does well
>> there, but then that's what it was designed and bought for rather than
>> long-range aircraft plinking.
>
> That's all very nice, but it's also all very irrelevant to the point
> of the discussion.

No, Fred, it *is* the point of the discussion you joined.

The original claim was that ESSM was an area air-defence weapon system
on a par with Sea Dart for isoleth size, and the original claimant
insisted that its published range of "up to fifty kilometres" proved it
as being one.

> You remember what I do for a living, right, Paul?

Fred, do you actually know what I do and who I do it for?

The evidence has repeatedly been that you don't, but I'm prepared to be
shown wrong.

> Do you frequently
> try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?

That's a much more amusing statement than you probably intended.


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.




== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 3:57 am
From: Fred J. McCall  


"Paul J. Adam" <paul.j.adam@gmai...> wrote:

>On 28/11/2011 07:38, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Paul J. Adam"<paul.j.adam@gmai...>  wrote:
>>> Or, they got a better "about this far..." figure from someone, or - as
>>> has happened in other cases - someone with some technical know-how sat
>>> down and did a bit of informed what-iffery.
>>
>> And they're the only ones?  And they left their text inconsistent with
>> all this new information/analysis?
>
>It seems so, yes. I'm not privy to the internal discussions, just
>observing the changes in the publications.
>
>>> It's _slightly_ suspicious to me that the early, and still widely held,
>>> "twenty-seven nautical miles" is _so_ exactly 50km.
>>
>> That doesn't address my question.  It's also pretty irrelevant, since
>> the figure is quoted with a '+' and nobody has claimed it is the
>> actual classified range.
>
>Fred, there *is* no "actual classified range" - that's the point you
>keep choosing to miss. Change the geometry, change the range. Change the
>target, change the range. Change the target's *reactions*, change the
>range.
>
>You're meant to know this stuff.
>

Actually, there are indeed "actual classified ranges" and they take
all those things and more into account.  However, in this case that is
all mere obfuscation.  You posed a quite simple and relatively
unrestricted scenario and then proceeded to claim that ESSM only had a
10 nm range, period.

YOU are certainly meant to know all this stuff, but you're also meant
to actually stick to your original issue rather than fleeing hither
and yon screaming.

>>> It's like my reporting my income to the IRS as US$157,951 for the year -
>>> sounds wonderfully precise, unless you realise I just fed £100,000 and
>>> some wishful thinking into a currency converter.
>>>
>>> Someone says "why, as far as fifty kilometres or so is possible" and
>>> shashkablooey! there's the Official Guaranteed Range Figure.
>>
>> 'Somebody'?  So you're just electing to use the figure from the odd
>> man out?
>
>Actually, it's not *my* call - I did point that out.
>

Actually, it is *your* call here, since you're the one making the
claims.

>
>> What makes their 'somebody' so much more reliable in your
>> mind than everyone else's 'somebody'?
>
>For the engagements we're modelling, the ESSM users preferred the
>current Jane's figures to the older "fifty kilometres! woo!" numbers.
>

Evasion.

1) We're not talking about the engagements you're modeling there.
We're talking about the claim you made here.

2) These "ESSM users" you want to deflect to aren't here and they
aren't the ones who made the claim that an intercept at a specific
range was impossible.  You are.

>>> Depends how much credence you want to give them. As usual, the *actual*
>>> range of a missile depends entirely on the engagement: the same weapon
>>> might succeed at twenty miles and fail at two in different vignettes.
>>
>> Very little credence and it's not based on 'want'.  Someone
>> contradicting themselves gets less credence than those who do not,
>> regardless of 'want'.
>
>Which is why "open sources" are not reliable for representing actual
>system performance in a fairly narrowly bounded class of engagments.
>

Yet here you are, making claims of absolute impossibility.  Yet when
called on it, you attempt to obfuscate.

>> Is that why you're selecting the 'odd man out' on the range figures?
>> Based on 'want'?
>
>No, the RIM-162 users chose the number as a better approximation - and
>it's only an approximation - of performance for the system that we could
>pass back and forth on unclasssified lines. For more detail, they picked
>a particular weapon model that ships with the unclassified SADM
>installation as a decent representation of ESSM.
>
>I didn't choose it, they did.
>

They're not here.  You are.  They didn't choose it here.  You did.
They didn't pose the claim made here.  You did.

>>> I don't actually know the classified numbers in terms like "outer
>>> intercept boundary". I know where and how ESSM engagements have fallen
>>> over in challenging engagements, but I don't know to much more than an
>>> order of magnitude what it can achieve for easier shots.
>>>
>>> Back to the problem of "define what you mean by range" - I can twist
>>> things horribly just by how I choose the engagement for each figure.
>>
>> So we're down to 'want' and 'twisting' in your case?
>
>Not at the moment, but we could be if you like. Do you want a civil
>conversation, or are you filling your pockets with faeces again?
>

Given the amount of faeces that you generally fling, it's pretty much
impossible not to do the latter, regardless of my total lack of
interest in your silly evasions and attempts to redirect via insult
and irrelevant obfuscation.

>
>Why, if that's the game then Sea Dart has a range of well over a hundred
>miles and has _really_ been undersold all its life. If you know guided
>weapons then you shouldn't need to be told this.
>

<yawn>

>>> Because the forum I was just hosting, is sharing scenarios and data via
>>> e-mail which means we need to stay unclassified - but we also want to
>>> stay within sight and earshot of the truth. (The days and travel budgets
>>> when you could get a 5EYES research team together more than once or
>>> twice a year, are sadly gone...)
>>>
>>> Hence some debate over which systems to represent, with what fidelity,
>>> and where to draw data from.
>>
>> And how is this a reason for NOT using the numbers that appear in a
>> preponderance of sources?
>
>Because "you can routinely delete any target you see out to a range of
>fifty kilometres" so badly misrepresents the system and its
>capabilities, that any work based on that claim becomes worthless. Just
>because a particular number is attractive and widely cited, doesn't make
>it correct or useful.
>

Well, it's good that nobody has made such a claim here, although that
means that it's bad that you try to pretend someone has.  Yet another
misdirection on your part.

>
>The current Jane's figure is considerably more appropriate for the
>engagements of interest in that forum, if only because they're
>horizon-limited.
>

This isn't that forum.  The engagement you claimed was impossible
apparently isn't one that is "of interest in that forum".

>>> Back to the problem of "define the engagement". Go back a few versions,
>>> and AIM-7E was credited with a range of 16nm... if launched from an
>>> aircraft flying Mach 2, at an equally fast target closing head-on, both
>>> aircraft at 50,000 feet. If the engagement was identical except for the
>>> target flying _away_ then range dropped to 3nm at most.
>>
>> You don't generally shoot point defense weapons at opening targets,
>> since they're not a threat.
>
>If your weapon has "a range you can rely on" of fifty kilometres then it
>most definitely isn't a point-defence system - which was the argument I
>was making from the start.
>

Who said anything about "a range you can rely on"?  No one here. Well,
no one here other than you, in yet another attempt at indirection.

>>> The *really* important figure in the real world is "how close must I
>>> keep the MEU I'm protecting?" and that generally bears very little
>>> resemblance to any headline "engagement range" values. ESSM does well
>>> there, but then that's what it was designed and bought for rather than
>>> long-range aircraft plinking.
>>
>> That's all very nice, but it's also all very irrelevant to the point
>> of the discussion.
>
>No, Fred, it *is* the point of the discussion you joined.
>

No, Paul, it is *not* the point of the discussion at the point where I
joined it.

>
>The original claim was that ESSM was an area air-defence weapon system
>on a par with Sea Dart for isoleth size, and the original claimant
>insisted that its published range of "up to fifty kilometres" proved it
>as being one.
>

And was I that 'original claimant'?

Well, no, I wasn't.

Did I make any such claim "that ESSM was an area air-defense weapon
system on a par with Sea Dart for isoleth size"?

Well, no, I didn't.

Just more indirection on your part.

Do you need to go back and look at the statement of yours that I
disagreed with?

>> You remember what I do for a living, right, Paul?
>
>Fred, do you actually know what I do and who I do it for?
>
>The evidence has repeatedly been that you don't, but I'm prepared to be
>shown wrong.
>

When you see me lecturing you on things that you ought to already know
well in some attempt to obfuscate and redirect a discussion, why you
feel free to bring that up again.

There's a lesson there for you, so I hope you're paying attention.

>> Do you frequently
>> try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?
>
>That's a much more amusing statement than you probably intended.
>

So the answer is 'yes', then?

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
                                      -- Socrates





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Socialism great idea
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/4d8919d1ce878a5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 2:12 am
From: "Patriot_Gaymes"  



"David E. Powell"  wrote in message
news:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006-bdf7-661f34345ec3@cu3g......

...that never works in practice.

Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!

LOL!





== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 8:03 am
From: Frogwatch  


On Nov 28, 5:12 am, "Patriot_Gaymes" <patriot.gay...@gmai...> wrote:
> "David E. Powell"  wrote in messagenews:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006-bdf7-661f34345ec3@cu3g......
>
> ...that never works in practice.
>
> Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!
>
> LOL!

Communism "cause " by capitalism?  Really?  Does this fool know any
history?  Russia prior to communism was not capitalist and neither was
China.
In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s.  In China, there would
be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
caused famine in the late 50s and 60s.  In Cambodia there would be
fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot.  IN Ethiopa,
communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
there without communism.I could go on and on....
We have been thru this calculation and even if we allow that all
deaths in WW2 were caused by "capitalism" (simply not true as Japan
was not capitalist) then since the beginning of communism in Russia,
communism has intentionally caused the deaths of more than 4X the
number caused by capitalism
Capitalism is responsible for almost all of the wealth the world now
has and is responsible for our ability to produce food for 9 billion
people.  Communist nations could not even feed themselves.

I do agree that pure unrestrained capitalism leads to instability and/
or monopoly so a minimum amount of govt control is a good thing.
Crony crapitalism is bad because it assumes that the govt is smarter
than the natural mathematics that control an economy, ie. bad ideas
should fail.




== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 8:23 am
From: Frogwatch  


On Nov 28, 11:03 am, Frogwatch <ohara...@mind...> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:12 am, "Patriot_Gaymes" <patriot.gay...@gmai...> wrote:
>
> > "David E. Powell"  wrote in messagenews:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006-bdf7-661f34345ec3@cu3g......
>
> > ...that never works in practice.
>
> > Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!
>
> > LOL!
>
> Communism "cause " by capitalism?  Really?  Does this fool know any
> history?  Russia prior to communism was not capitalist and neither was
> China.
> In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
> intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s.  In China, there would
> be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
> caused famine in the late 50s and 60s.  In Cambodia there would be
> fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot.  IN Ethiopa,
> communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
> there without communism.I could go on and on....
> We have been thru this calculation and even if we allow that all
> deaths in WW2 were caused by "capitalism" (simply not true as Japan
> was not capitalist) then since the beginning of communism in Russia,
> communism has intentionally caused the deaths of more than 4X the
> number caused by capitalism
> Capitalism is responsible for almost all of the wealth the world now
> has and is responsible for our ability to produce food for 9 billion
> people.  Communist nations could not even feed themselves.
>
> I do agree that pure unrestrained capitalism leads to instability and/
> or monopoly so a minimum amount of govt control is a good thing.
> Crony crapitalism is bad because it assumes that the govt is smarter
> than the natural mathematics that control an economy, ie. bad ideas
> should fail.

In general, people like this Quinn fraud actually do know the bloody
history of communism and that it brought us more suffering than any
other political philosophy in it's short reign yet they espouse it
because they expect to be someone who profits from it.  By espousing
it, they expect to be one of the fortunate few who is on top rather
one of the billions who suffer.  Thus, it is pure selfishness and evil
that motivates them.




== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 9:56 am
From: Paul F Austin  


On 11/28/2011 11:03 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:12 am, "Patriot_Gaymes"<patriot.gay...@gmai...>  wrote:
>> "David E. Powell"  wrote in messagenews:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006-bdf7-661f34345ec3@cu3g......
>>
>> ...that never works in practice.
>>
>> Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!
>>
>> LOL!
>
> Communism "cause " by capitalism?  Really?  Does this fool know any
> history?  Russia prior to communism was not capitalist and neither was
> China.
> In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
> intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s.  In China, there would
> be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
> caused famine in the late 50s and 60s.  In Cambodia there would be
> fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot.  IN Ethiopa,
> communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
> there without communism.I could go on and on....

Here's a minor quibble. God knows I detest communism but the famine
associated with the Great Leap was caused by incompetent economics and
not even Marxian economics at that. Elsewhere, food control and famine
were standard tools of Marxist-Leninist regimes. Some of suggested that
Lenin inherited the idea from Tsarist methods of control but I've never
seen any Russian history that supports it.

Paul





== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:24 am
From: Frogwatch  


On Nov 28, 12:56 pm, Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bell...> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 11:03 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 5:12 am, "Patriot_Gaymes"<patriot.gay...@gmai...>  wrote:
> >> "David E. Powell"  wrote in messagenews:9c7e0e86-aa69-4006-bdf7-661f34345ec3@cu3g......
>
> >> ...that never works in practice.
>
> >> Yes, crony capitalism that blows up every 50 years is so much better!
>
> >> LOL!
>
> > Communism "cause " by capitalism?  Really?  Does this fool know any
> > history?  Russia prior to communism was not capitalist and neither was
> > China.
> > In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
> > intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s.  In China, there would
> > be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
> > caused famine in the late 50s and 60s.  In Cambodia there would be
> > fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot.  IN Ethiopa,
> > communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
> > there without communism.I could go on and on....
>
> Here's a minor quibble. God knows I detest communism but the famine
> associated with the Great Leap was caused by incompetent economics and
> not even Marxian economics at that. Elsewhere, food control and famine
> were standard tools of Marxist-Leninist regimes. Some of suggested that
> Lenin inherited the idea from Tsarist methods of control but I've never
> seen any Russian history that supports it.
>
> Paul

People who support communism knowing its faults and history do so
because they know that in a merit based system they would fail because
they have no merit.  Consequently, they espouse a force based system
in which they hope to be part of those in control.





== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:14 am
From: William Black  


On 28/11/11 16:03, Frogwatch wrote:
>
> In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
> intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s.  In China, there would
> be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
> caused famine in the late 50s and 60s.  In Cambodia there would be
> fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot.  IN Ethiopa,
> communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
> there without communism.I could go on and on....

You assume that what takes over in these countries is better...

That really is an unfounded assumption.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...




== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:25 am
From: Eugene Griessel  


On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:14:28 +0000, William Black
<blackusenet@gmai...> wrote:

>On 28/11/11 16:03, Frogwatch wrote:
>>
>> In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
>> intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s.  In China, there would
>> be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
>> caused famine in the late 50s and 60s.  In Cambodia there would be
>> fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot.  IN Ethiopa,
>> communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
>> there without communism.I could go on and on....
>
>You assume that what takes over in these countries is better...

Ethiopia, in particular, has been having regular famines since the
dawn of recorded history in the place.

Eugene L Griessel

   A closed mouth gathers no feet.




== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:14 am
From: Shawn Wilson  


On Nov 28, 12:28 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
wrote:

> >>Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.
>
> > Nope.  The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
> > America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
> > growth.
>
> Cancer grows fast too.


So, do kudzu and bamboo.  What's your point?  Are you arguing that
economic growth is bad?  If it is bad than fast growth would be a bad
thing.  But... since economic gerowth is a good thing faster growth is
superior to slower.  So to maximize the welfare of the people we need
social policies that promote growth, and that means capitalism.




> >>Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>
> > Yes, this is a good thing.  It creates the mo0st wealth froma  given
> > set of inputs.
>
> It *also* creates the most poverty.


No, it doesn't.  As I pointed out, it creates the most wealth form a
given set of resources.  Socialism creates poverty, by using a given
set of imputs to produce less than it otherwise could, there is less
to go around and thus people are poorer.

In 19th century US the people were the richest in the world, which is
why the US attracted so many immigrants.  They went where the money
was, and going to America meant an improvement in their standard of
living.




> >>Socialism puts *people* before money.
>
> > And the tens of millions of dead socialist due to famines, the Gulag,
> > etc were examples of putting people first?
>
> And the hundreds of millions dead from famines, malnutrition, no
> medical care, and the myriad of other maladys caused by uncontrolled
> pure "free" capitalism.


OK, where ARE they?  Take 19th century America, which is the epitomy
of unfettered capitalism on a large scale, show me a single famine.
Socialist countries experienced mupltiple famines in a few decades,
and with people starving to death by the million.  Show me that in a
capitalist country.  Show me ONE in the US in the 19th century.

Maladies caused by capitalism?  How about the maladies caused by
socialism?  Socilaist countries were never bastions of good health.

BTW, Ireland was victim of the socialist policiy known as the Corn
Laws, which prohibited certain capitalsit econbomic adjustments to the
crop failure.  So, the Irish potato famine does not qualify as
'capitalist'.



> >>The U.S. is a socialist country too, with many good sense controls on capitalism.
>
> > No, it has a grat many ASININE business regulations that only make us
> > poorer.
>
> which: child labor laws, 8 hour days, overtime pay, workers comp insurance.



All bad for workers by denying them choice.  If you are willing and
able and want to work more than 8 hours because you need money a lot
more than you need free time, you are screwed.  But in the converse if
you don't want to work long hours no one can force you to.  All an
employer could conceivably do is fire you, and there are millions of
other employers.  Socilaism has made peope unambiguously worse off.



> We Americans *like* our socialist laws.




So do the North Koreans like theirs.  That doesn't mean they are an
improvement on their absence though.





== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 12:05 pm
From: tutall  


On Nov 26, 10:10 am, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmai...> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 7:41 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@cold...>
> wrote:
>
> > Patriot_Gaymes wrote:
> > > "DGVREIMAN"  wrote in message
> > > anyone that advocates pure communism or socialism...
>
> > Pure Capitalism is a *far* worse proven failure too...Pure Anything is bad.
>
> Nope.  The least regulated economies in the world, 19th century
> America and post WWII Hong Kong also showed by far the fastest
> growth.
>
> > Pure Capitalism is about *money*..."free" markets, no controls, and for *maximum* profits.
>
> Yes, this is a good thing.  It creates the mo0st wealth froma  given
> set of inputs.


Shawn, would you agree that 19th C Americans had a higher level of
ethics, moral restrictions, what have you than can be found today.
And, that modern communication, along with the lower level of ethical
behavior has changed the playing ground so much that it's not a valid
comparison?
Corporations with global interests did  not exist either. So much has
changed that this sort of harkening to an earlier age seems a refusal
to see how the modern world really works; self administered
ideological blinkers.

I would argue that the largest modern corporations have too little
self interest in or for the nation states where they operate. Based on
history would not expect that deregulating such extra territorial
entities would benefit anyone other than shareholders, seeing how
they've behaved in third world countries. They do shit in their own
nest without compunction when it profits them to.


> No, it has a grat many ASININE business regulations that only make us
> poorer.

Oh shit, an ideologue wanting to throw out the baby with the
bathwater? Are you one of those that wishes to see the FDA and EPA
abolished?




== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 12:19 pm
From: William Black  


On 28/11/11 19:25, Eugene Griessel wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:14:28 +0000, William Black
> <blackusenet@gmai...>  wrote:
>
>> On 28/11/11 16:03, Frogwatch wrote:
>>>
>>> In the Ukraine, there would be fewer dead if communism had never
>>> intentionally caused the famines of the 1930s.  In China, there would
>>> be 60 million fewer dead if the Communists had not intentionally
>>> caused famine in the late 50s and 60s.  In Cambodia there would be
>>> fewer dead if there had never been a communist Pol Pot.  IN Ethiopa,
>>> communists initially caused the famines so there would be fewer dead
>>> there without communism.I could go on and on....
>>
>> You assume that what takes over in these countries is better...
>
> Ethiopia, in particular, has been having regular famines since the
> dawn of recorded history in the place.

Recent history in Ethiopia seems to indicate that many recent famines
have been deliberately encouraged as part of some sort of local conflict
(you can't really call them 'civil wars',  they're a bit too low
intensity for that)

I was thinking more of the huge cock-up that resulted in four million
people dying in the 1943 Bengal famine.

And Bangladesh hasn't a marvellous record either.

Mind you,  even Mao would have been hard pressed to manage the level of
slaughter managed in the Taiping absurdity.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frequency hopping
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/5c3d99706a2eb871?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 3:18 am
From: Richard Casady  


On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 23:33:01 -0800, "La N."
<nilita2004NOSPAM@yaho...> wrote:

>Happy birthday to [guess who], the inventory of frequency hopping!

Public radio had a long discussion about Hedy Lamarr and also what
happened to the technology in later decades. Bluetooth for example.

Casady





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Af/Pak & Other News (11/26/2011)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/a3f463cd3c456b93?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 3:34 am
From: SolomonW  


On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:

> On 27/11/11 04:06, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:29:58 -0800 (PST), dumpster4@hotm... wrote:
>>
>>> General: History Will Judge Afghan War Positively:
>>>
>>> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8354570&c=EUR&s=LAN
>>
>> More accurately some historians might.
>
> I doubt that.
>
> The first two Afghan wars are universally condemned and the third was a
> mess that everyone keeps trying to forget.

I am not sure what you mean by the first three Afghan wars.

>
> The judgement of history will be what it usually is with Afghanistan:
>
> "Afghanistan is just too difficult"
>
> The only chance we've got is the introduction of a massive education
> system and the introduction of Western luxuries on a huge scale.
>
> People whose wives have washing machines don't attack the local power
> station...

One of the lessons of the Third Anglo-Afghan War, is if the Afghans do not
cause problems outside, they should be left alone because it is not worth
getting involved in the place.




>
> But right now we just can't afford that,  any more than the Soviets could.
>
> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.

Part of the reason here is I think after the Cold War ended it would have
made a lot of sense for the West to prop up the Russians in Afghanistan.





== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 4:49 am
From: "Keith W"  


SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>
>>
>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>
> Part of the reason here is I think after the Cold War ended it would
> have made a lot of sense for the West to prop up the Russians in
> Afghanistan.

Which would been a clever trick given that the Russians began to leave
in 1988 which is some time before the cold war ended. The real problem
is that the west lost interest after the soviets left and allowed the
Pakistani ISI free to pursue its plan of dominating the country through
the Taliban who they trained and equipped.

The soviets screwed things up bigtime, prior to their invasion they
actually already had a marxist regime in place in the form of
the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan .

The ruling PDPA managed to piss off much of the country and
a rather nasty civil war started. It didn't help that they also
wanted to expand 'the peoples revolution' into Pakistan and
thus pissed them off too.

The Soviets added fuel to the fire by intervening thus expanding
the civil war by managing to paint their allies as not only
oppressors of Islam but also as traitors too.

Quite why Mr Black thinks this was going forwards is beyond me.

Keith






== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 5:43 am
From: William Black  


On 28/11/11 11:34, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>
>> On 27/11/11 04:06, SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:29:58 -0800 (PST), dumpster4@hotm... wrote:
>>>
>>>> General: History Will Judge Afghan War Positively:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8354570&c=EUR&s=LAN
>>>
>>> More accurately some historians might.
>>
>> I doubt that.
>>
>> The first two Afghan wars are universally condemned and the third was a
>> mess that everyone keeps trying to forget.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by the first three Afghan wars.

And yet you refer to the Third Anglo Afghan War below...

>
>>
>> The judgement of history will be what it usually is with Afghanistan:
>>
>> "Afghanistan is just too difficult"
>>
>> The only chance we've got is the introduction of a massive education
>> system and the introduction of Western luxuries on a huge scale.
>>
>> People whose wives have washing machines don't attack the local power
>> station...
>
> One of the lessons of the Third Anglo-Afghan War, is if the Afghans do not
> cause problems outside, they should be left alone because it is not worth
> getting involved in the place.
>
The reason we're there now is because they allowed their house guests to
get involved 'outside'.

The rest of the world was quite prepared to let them jkeep repressing
their women and raiding each other as long as they didn't actually raid
over any borders.

But they always do...

>> But right now we just can't afford that,  any more than the Soviets could.
>>
>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>
> Part of the reason here is I think after the Cold War ended it would have
> made a lot of sense for the West to prop up the Russians in Afghanistan.
>

The US political establishment had far too much of its credibility
invested in a Russian defeat.

Afghan women were better off under the Soviets,  and the women,
especially as regards education, are the key...

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...




== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 5:46 am
From: William Black  


On 28/11/11 12:49, Keith W wrote:
> SolomonW wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>>
> The Soviets added fuel to the fire by intervening thus expanding
> the civil war by managing to paint their allies as not only
> oppressors of Islam but also as traitors too.
>
> Quite why Mr Black thinks this was going forwards is beyond me.

Because the Soviet campaign was initially one which tried to drag
Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the nineteen twenties...

The usual Soviet policies of universal education and universal free
healthcare,  no matter how badly implemented,  were a lot more than
we're doing.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...




== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 9:28 am
From: "Keith W"  


William Black wrote:
> On 28/11/11 12:49, Keith W wrote:
>> SolomonW wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>>>
>> The Soviets added fuel to the fire by intervening thus expanding
>> the civil war by managing to paint their allies as not only
>> oppressors of Islam but also as traitors too.
>>
>> Quite why Mr Black thinks this was going forwards is beyond me.
>
> Because the Soviet campaign was initially one which tried to drag
> Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the nineteen twenties...
>

Trying to impose socialist values grounded in atheistic dogma
on a deeply religious tribal society was never going to end well.


> The usual Soviet policies of universal education and universal free
> healthcare,  no matter how badly implemented,  were a lot more than
> we're doing.

Well given their policies created instant couintry wide jihad
copying them would seem like a bad idea.

Keith






== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:16 am
From: William Black  


On 28/11/11 17:28, Keith W wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> On 28/11/11 12:49, Keith W wrote:
>>> SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:37:27 +0000, William Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, compared to what the Soviets did we're going backwards.
>>>>
>>> The Soviets added fuel to the fire by intervening thus expanding
>>> the civil war by managing to paint their allies as not only
>>> oppressors of Islam but also as traitors too.
>>>
>>> Quite why Mr Black thinks this was going forwards is beyond me.
>>
>> Because the Soviet campaign was initially one which tried to drag
>> Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the nineteen twenties...
>>
>
> Trying to impose socialist values grounded in atheistic dogma
> on a deeply religious tribal society was never going to end well.
>
>
>> The usual Soviet policies of universal education and universal free
>> healthcare,  no matter how badly implemented,  were a lot more than
>> we're doing.
>
> Well given their policies created instant couintry wide jihad
> copying them would seem like a bad idea.

There never was any 'instant country wide jihad',  it took years for
Pakistan to convince the USA to pay for the insurrection.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Q : BB62 - 1943 Displacement
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/3fd493a08fd1768f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 7:51 am
From: Mark Sieving  


On Nov 27, 8:38 pm, Peter Granzeau <pgranz...@cox....> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:44:05 +0100, "Naess" <Inva...@dont...> wrote:
> >> The biggest variable weight is the amount of fuel.  Emergency full load
> >> would have every tank filled full of oil.  The figure quoted for optimum
> >> battle condition is too light.  It should be about 55,000 tons.
> >> Bud
>
> >The optimum load 45,649 tons is equal to 56,542 metric tons.
>
> >Thanks for your answer!
>
> I would assume tonnage given is in US short tons.  A short ton is
> approximately .9072 of a metric tonne.  Thus 45,649 x .9072 would give
> 41,413 metric tonnes.
>
> I would guess the Iowa at 56,532 metric tonnes displacement would have
> her decks nearly awash.

As others have noted, the tonnage would be in long tons, 2,240 lbs.
According to FTP 218 "War Service Fuel Consumption of U.S. Naval
Surface Vessels", New Jersey's average displacement in 1943 - 1944 was
55,900 tons.  Iowa's average displacement was 57,100 tons.




== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 11:55 am
From: "Naess"  


> I think you meant 3000 tons more.

Yes I did, I can't believe I made such a stupid type-mistake, sorry bout
that! :-(

To all others :
To be honest I'm not really into U.S. measure standards, I'm from Denmark
and all I know is DK-standards which are metric. I quoted the ship's data
from the Battleship-newspaper and it says :
Optimum Battle : 45,649 tons (56,542 m.t.)
- So I just assumed the "m.t." meant metric tons.

Anyways, I really don't care about which weight is right. I just wanted to
know what Emergency load meant, so thank you William Hamblen and David E.
Powell for your feedback on the subject.

Best regards
Kevin Naess







==============================================================================
TOPIC: Af/Pak & Other News (11/28/2011)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/da88337c5fb7a0b4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 9:06 am
From: dumpster4@hotm...


Pakistan border closure raises NATO supply fears:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hy3uEJ3QamXGD54tzyESAKMkXMbQ?docId=CNG.c82786f82bcfae51b6990ccf05bfd82b.261



Afghan opium production to expand after troops exit:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21592:afghan-opium-production-to-expand-after-troops-exit&catid=54:Governance&Itemid=118




Afghanistan: Bribing the Taliban May Be Paying Off:

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/11/28/afghanistan-bribing-the-taliban-may-be-paying-off/



Son Of MULE Fails In Afghanistan:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20111128.aspx



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Other news:



Syrian FM calls Arab sanctions 'economic war':

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYFhJJZlD4PejHqMNOKNiJzlBKvA?docId=a29e01af888c41d599097a1b279cf8f5



Suicide car bomber kills 19 outside prison in Iraq:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45459231/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/



NATO soldiers wounded by gunfire in Kosovo clash:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/28/us-kosovo-violence-idUSTRE7AR0O320111128



Italians learn MRAPs in Grafenwoehr:

http://www.defencetalk.com/italians-learn-mraps-in-grafenwoehr-38539/



France takes delivery of first BvS 10 Mk II high mobility armoured
vehicles:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21579:france-takes-delivery-of-first-bvs-10-mk-ii-high-mobility-armoured-vehicles&catid=50:Land&Itemid=105



Second X-47B UCAS-D Flies:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2ba23b68-3014-4e4a-b510-39023654f3c1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



Video: F-35C Launches From EMALS:

http://defensetech.org/2011/11/28/video-f-35c-launches-from-emals/



Iran bans US video game showing Tehran invasion:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Iran_bans_US_video_game_showing_Tehran_invasion_999.html



Greece will allow armed guards on ships to protect from pirates:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21594:greece-will-allow-armed-guards-on-ships-to-protect-from-pirates&catid=51:Sea&Itemid=106



India Looking for Amphibious Ships:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/India-Looking-for-Amphibious-Ships-07213/



GA-ASI Lynx Radar Adapted for Maritime Surveillance from an Aerostat:

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2011-11-25/ga-asi-lynx-radar-adapted-maritime-surveillance-aerostat



France receives first catamaran landing craft:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21583:france-receives-first-catamaran-landing-craft-&catid=51:Sea&Itemid=106



Laser vs UAV: No Fair Fight Here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae8b338a3-a1da-4246-94d9-8d309629e752&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



Russia to send warships to Syria in 2012: report:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_to_send_warships_to_Syria_in_2012_report_999.html



Hawker Beechcraft Protests Exclusion of AT-6 from U.S. Light Air
Support Contest:

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2011-11-25/hawker-beechcraft-protests-exclusion-6-us-light-air-support-contest



Australia saves six F-111s, offers seven, buries 23:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-saves-six-f-111s-offers-seven-buries-23-365321/





==============================================================================
TOPIC: I DEMAND I BE HEARD DEMANDING SOME SELF RESPECT HERE
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/916c21742c7cf65c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 10:37 am
From: nik Simpson  


You can't demand "self respect" that's what you give yourself and I
suspect you're not short of it.

--
Nik Simpson





==============================================================================
TOPIC: HMCS Regina in Vancouver at Canada Place 2011.11.26-27
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/t/cea26e2bebaa2599?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 28 2011 12:57 pm
From: Dennis  


La N. wrote:

> "Dennis" wrote in message
>> La N. wrote:
>>
>>>> Will it upset my standing as an amateur gynaecologist?
>>>
>>> I dunno, Eugene ... I'm Canadian, we're polite and don't speak of
>>> such things.
>>
>> ???  I heard that Canadians were even more plain-spoken than us
>> notoriously
>> crass Americans.
>
> Oh, you've met my daughter, the budding comic then .. heheh.

She seems rather demure to me.  

No, I saw that in a cultural chart that included such matters.  The Aussies
are also supposed to be quite blunt.  I didn't think anyone could be worse
than us!

> btw, you might have also heard that we Canucks also have an ironic
> sense of humour ... an example of my response to Eugene ...;)

I hadn't heard that!  I didn't think you were really prudes.  No one can
figure out us Americans.  We're prudes and obsessed with sex too.  

In Paris I once got a French mag on picking up women.  The article on
picking up American women said, "So far as sex goes, they're an odd mix of
puritanism and liberalism; forbidden things shock them and excite them
tremendously at the same time."  That's the Froggies' assessment.

Dennis




==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.military.naval"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.military.naval+unsubscribe@goog...

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@goog...

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en