Ronald Reagan mostly responsible for the space shuttle challenger tragedy. Gotta beat those Ruskies

Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
Stuf4 wrote:

My arguments here have been like arguing that the Earth is round.
Those with limited perspective will insist that the Earth is flat.

Actually, your arguments are more akin to arguing that the Earth is a
hollow sphere with openings at the poles. You dismiss as having
"limited perspective" anyone who thinks that the conventional view of
the Earth as a sphere is a much better fit to the available evidence.

Brad Guth uses much the same tactic. He argues that there are lizard
folk on Venus with advanced airships and that the Apollo landings on
the moon were faked and that Columbia was destroyed by an airborne
laser. Anyone who disagrees is dismissed as a "NASA mole" or a "NASA
borg".

Of course, you are much more reasonable than Guth (and infinitely
more articulate) but the fact remains that you constantly feel the
need to adopt his abusive tactics.

Jim Davis

Where do you get that? I have yet to see CT get "abusive."
LaDonna

LaDonna Wyss wrote:

Where do you get that? I have yet to see CT get "abusive."

Pay closer attention, LaDonna. In the very post of his I was
responding to he equates disagreement with him to belief in a flat
Earth. Hardly a post of his doesn't express similar sentiments.

Jim Davis

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Where do you get that? I have yet to see CT get "abusive."

Not surprising that you wouldn't consider what he does abusive, since it's
the same tactic that you employ as well, just not as well.

"Mary Shafer" wrote ...

I'll probably regret this, but have a look at:
http://www.avalanchetankers.us/archives/000058.html
to see how Skippy and the Army get along.

I particularly like 33 and 34.

33. Not allowed to chew gum at formation, unless I brought enough for everybody.

34. (Next day) Not allowed to chew gum at formation even if I *did* bring enough for everybody.

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Christopher Jones:
Stuf4 wrote:
Consider the lesson from The Matrix.
One lesson from the Matrix is that even after peeling away a level of
~ CT

I'd like the plaid pill please.

(LaDonna Wyss) wrote in message om...
(Would you like another?) wrote in message . com...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote in message . com...
(Would you like another?) wrote in message . com...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote in message . com...
(Would you like another?) wrote in message . com...
"Jazz" wrote in message ...
"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
"Jazz" wrote in message
...
"You Gonna Get A Spankin'" wrote in message
m...
Let history show that it was Reagan who said that the show must go on,
that the challenger (aka Skytrain #1) had to go up come hell or high
water so the Ruskies would not leapfrog the Amerikkkans in the space
competition.

Their blood (well, dust, actually) was on his hands. Another thing to
remember the great communicator for - another negative legacy to
remember him by. A tribute to Reagan's true motivations and
character.

Posted to all these groups because all of you have been discussing one
and/or the other of them and I just thought I would reiterate it for
youse.

And this I do pray in my God's name,
(Your) diddy

I completely agree!
Your Friend,
Ron Reagan (Dad's Son)

It always amazes me when the crazies come out of the woodwork after
someone's death. Ron Reagan would NEVER post such a thing, "Jazz",
you gutless wonder.

Ya better keep up with the news.
Ronald would roll over in his grave
at Ron's ramblings today to the press.
Of course, Ron never believed in his
father's political views anyway.
His Dad's death didn't change him a bit.

Ron Jr. is still alive and well. Ron Sr. claimed to be a vegetable
his last 10 years, but everyone has found out that claim was a sham.

Nancy destroyed the evidence - the stainless steel cookware. Everyone
knows of the link between Alzheimer's and aluminum cookware. So Nancy
had to get rid of the evidence although it appears she is trying to be
claiming that she has the Alzheimer's too. But it is not contagious,
so she is a liar just as her late husband was.

Any more questions LaWhore?

What is YOUR problem, Gutless-Wonder?

I hate bitches like you bitch. You give bitches like us bitches a bad
name bitch. Clear enough for youse biatch? ;-/

I am incredibly impressed with your vocabulary. Where did you waste
your college loans? Harvard?
LaDonna


US military academy, you silly fool......

Lynndie

Which one, "fool"? And is the only word they taught you in this "US
military academy" the word "bitch"?
LaDonna
\
Gosh, not only can you not count but you also can't read. Feel sorry
for you biatch

Your diddy

Away for teh weekend - my turn in the bunker.

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) writes:
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ...
"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...

Consider the lesson from The Matrix.

I rather doubt you could do the algebra.

You doubt CT could do the algebra???????
R O F L M F A O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you ONLY knew....
TOOO FUNNY!

He/She/It is certainly incapable of determining the probable safe
ejection envelopes of a Martin-Baker MK H-7 Ejection seat for crew
weights and sitting heights approaching the limits, even when provided
with the Flight Manual data. - In fact, the respnse on being provided
same was, after claiming the problem to be "simple" ducked & ran.
(Sounds familiar, eh?)

Or capable of understanding the role that Test Pilots perform for
engine manufacturers.

Or able to interpret standard Aviation Safety data.

Or know anything about Nuclear Weapons that isn't in eith Chuck
Hansen's "U,S, Nuclear Weapons" 1988, Crown Publishers, NY, or the
"Nuclear Weapons Databook", Volume 1, U.S. Nuclear Forces and
Capabilities, Chorchran, Arking, Hoening, auth. 1984, NRDC via
Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge, MA.

Stuffie earned its credibility the same way you're earning yours.

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about; so you're saying
the two of you had a meeting and he couldn't answer your questions?

Not a face-to-face meeting, but a public network series of
conversations much as we are now. CT blew in much as you have -
making (at best) statements and analysis contrary to known facts, and
full of bluster about subjects that he/she/it clearly did _not_ know
as much about as he/she/it thought that it did. (I will use "He" to
refer to Stuffie in all further references in this thread, but
Stuffies true gender is undetermined and irrelevant)
In this particular case, he made a number of claims concerning a
subject that I certainly have more experience with - to whit, the Safe
Ejection Envelope of the Ejection Seats used in high performance
aircraft. I posed a question to him, and offered to provide the
source material that should have allowe him to either:
1. Back up the claim that such information to answer the question was
as easily determined as he claimed.
2. Admit that the solution to the problem wasn't as deterministic as
he had contended.

(I note that he followed up later in this threasd (Weekly killfile
audit) His account is not complete, or particularly accurate.
In particular, he missed the part where, over the course of 5 days, 7
attempts were made to E-mail him with the source material. He refused
to open it (Receipt indicators and the logs of the household SMTP
and NNTP servers back this up, and he apparently went to the point of
stuffing his own mailbox to capacity to avoid receipt if any data.)
He didn't mention _that_ part. I'm not surprised.

That was merely the culmination of a number of excahanges concerning
ridiculous, unsupportable, absurd, and in some cases, downright
slanderous contentions he'd put forward up to that time. The other
points mentioned refer to teh highlegts of some of them.

Or did you folks just try to "corner" him in here and he chose not to
respond? Those are two different things, you know.

Nope - a simple quiz. Anybody with his claimed expertise would have
either known the answers, or been able to find them. When the bet was
called he folded. Or, more to the point -
He activated Jammers, popped flares & started jinking (If in the air)
He popped smoke & ran (On the ground)
Or, perhaps, so sum up, he inked & ran away, in emulation of other
molluscs.


What I DO know is if that quote on your signature truly came from
Daniel Webster, I am truly disappointed. I had a far higher opinion
of him than that. PLEASE tell me the author is a misprint. :-)

It most certainly is accurate - and your inability to interpret it speaks
volumes.

I selected it on 13th Sept 2001, after having spent 48 hrs
under ground, doing, among other things, the screening of phone calls
from all manner of non-thinking, panicked bozos - from Members of the
Press seeking "The Real Secret Truth" (tm) to those convinced that the
acts of Sept. 11 were the fault of whatever had burned through their
tinfoil beanies.

It's also appropriate when you consider the case of James Kallstrom,
former head of teh New York Office of the FBI. His actions following
the TWA 800 crash were ill-considered, foolish attempts to bulldoze
the investigation into the accident to reach a preconceived
conclusion, for motives that can best be considered aggrandizement fo
himself and his Agency. In doing so, he interfered with and delayed the
productive investigation of the proper, experienced investigators, and
creeated a cloud of confuston that will be feeding the conspiracy
crowd for decades. As a result of this, he went from being Heir
Apparant of the FBI to doing voice-over introductions on the Discovery
Channel.

The message is simple - and those who can read and comprehend English,
be it British English, American Colloquial, or Indian Colloquial, have
no problem understanding it.

I'll leave you with another New England homily:
"It is better to be quit adn leave teh impression that you might be an
idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
Away for teh weekend - my turn in the bunker.

In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(LaDonna Wyss) writes:
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ...
"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...

Consider the lesson from The Matrix.

I rather doubt you could do the algebra.

You doubt CT could do the algebra???????
R O F L M F A O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you ONLY knew....
TOOO FUNNY!

He/She/It is certainly incapable of determining the probable safe
ejection envelopes of a Martin-Baker MK H-7 Ejection seat for crew
weights and sitting heights approaching the limits, even when provided
with the Flight Manual data. - In fact, the respnse on being provided
same was, after claiming the problem to be "simple" ducked & ran.
(Sounds familiar, eh?)

Or capable of understanding the role that Test Pilots perform for
engine manufacturers.

Or able to interpret standard Aviation Safety data.

Or know anything about Nuclear Weapons that isn't in eith Chuck
Hansen's "U,S, Nuclear Weapons" 1988, Crown Publishers, NY, or the
"Nuclear Weapons Databook", Volume 1, U.S. Nuclear Forces and
Capabilities, Chorchran, Arking, Hoening, auth. 1984, NRDC via
Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge, MA.

Stuffie earned its credibility the same way you're earning yours.

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about; so you're saying
the two of you had a meeting and he couldn't answer your questions?

Not a face-to-face meeting, but a public network series of
conversations much as we are now. CT blew in much as you have -
making (at best) statements and analysis contrary to known facts, and
full of bluster about subjects that he/she/it clearly did _not_ know
as much about as he/she/it thought that it did. (I will use "He" to
refer to Stuffie in all further references in this thread, but
Stuffies true gender is undetermined and irrelevant)
In this particular case, he made a number of claims concerning a
subject that I certainly have more experience with - to whit, the Safe
Ejection Envelope of the Ejection Seats used in high performance
aircraft. I posed a question to him, and offered to provide the
source material that should have allowe him to either:
1. Back up the claim that such information to answer the question was
as easily determined as he claimed.
2. Admit that the solution to the problem wasn't as deterministic as
he had contended.

(I note that he followed up later in this threasd (Weekly killfile
audit) His account is not complete, or particularly accurate.
In particular, he missed the part where, over the course of 5 days, 7
attempts were made to E-mail him with the source material. He refused
to open it (Receipt indicators and the logs of the household SMTP
and NNTP servers back this up, and he apparently went to the point of
stuffing his own mailbox to capacity to avoid receipt if any data.)
He didn't mention _that_ part. I'm not surprised.

That was merely the culmination of a number of excahanges concerning
ridiculous, unsupportable, absurd, and in some cases, downright
slanderous contentions he'd put forward up to that time. The other
points mentioned refer to teh highlegts of some of them.

Or did you folks just try to "corner" him in here and he chose not to
respond? Those are two different things, you know.

Nope - a simple quiz. Anybody with his claimed expertise would have
either known the answers, or been able to find them. When the bet was
called he folded. Or, more to the point -
He activated Jammers, popped flares & started jinking (If in the air)
He popped smoke & ran (On the ground)
Or, perhaps, so sum up, he inked & ran away, in emulation of other
molluscs.


What I DO know is if that quote on your signature truly came from
Daniel Webster, I am truly disappointed. I had a far higher opinion
of him than that. PLEASE tell me the author is a misprint. :-)

It most certainly is accurate - and your inability to interpret it speaks
volumes.

I selected it on 13th Sept 2001, after having spent 48 hrs
under ground, doing, among other things, the screening of phone calls
from all manner of non-thinking, panicked bozos - from Members of the
Press seeking "The Real Secret Truth" (tm) to those convinced that the
acts of Sept. 11 were the fault of whatever had burned through their
tinfoil beanies.

It's also appropriate when you consider the case of James Kallstrom,
former head of teh New York Office of the FBI. His actions following
the TWA 800 crash were ill-considered, foolish attempts to bulldoze
the investigation into the accident to reach a preconceived
conclusion, for motives that can best be considered aggrandizement fo
himself and his Agency. In doing so, he interfered with and delayed the
productive investigation of the proper, experienced investigators, and
creeated a cloud of confuston that will be feeding the conspiracy
crowd for decades. As a result of this, he went from being Heir
Apparant of the FBI to doing voice-over introductions on the Discovery
Channel.

The message is simple - and those who can read and comprehend English,
be it British English, American Colloquial, or Indian Colloquial, have
no problem understanding it.

I'll leave you with another New England homily:
"It is better to be quit adn leave teh impression that you might be an
idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Well, I might have thanked you for your explanation if you had not
been condescending, but perhaps you have given me a clue about
yourself in this message. As a Navy "brat" I spent time in a wide
variety of places in this country, and New England is probably the
most difficult to decipher. I truly appreciated and loved the history
there, but the people! Talk about suspicious, and cold, etc. If you
walked up and said hi, you could see their eyes darting around you
looking for the knife you were about to stab them with!
Please do not lecture me about English; I majored in the subject.
However, the condescention aside, your explanation sheds light on a
quote that on first reading sounded like the antithesis of what I
thought Daniel Webster stood for. I now think I understand what the
quote really meant, and I appreciate the enlightenment.
As for CT, I suppose I will just have to reserve judgment. I've
learned a couple of things about this person (as we all do if we're
inquisitive on the Internet), and I don't find this person to be a
"duck and run" kind of person. Since I wasn't an actual witness to
the original exchange, I'll just have to bow out of this one. :-)
LaDonna

"LaDonna Wyss" wrote in message
om...
Well, I might have thanked you for your explanation if you had not
been condescending

Well, boo ****in' woo. If you don't like to receive, don't give.

If you
walked up and said hi, you could see their eyes darting around you
looking for the knife you were about to stab them with!

They *were* dealing with you, after all.

Please do not lecture me about English; I majored in the subject.

More secret stuff, eh?

I don't find this person to be a
"duck and run" kind of person.

He's much more like a "change the subject when it's clear I'm not qualified
to talk about it but I'm too chicken-**** to admit it" kind of person.

I'll just have to bow out of this one. :-)

Don't stop there, you're welcome to go back to the alt heirarchy. Don't let
the newsgroup hit you in the LaDonna on the way out.

In article ,
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:


Please do not lecture me about English; I majored in the subject.

More secret stuff, eh?

Obviously it's secret, Scott. Don't you remember a few weeks ago when
"LaDonna" first dropped in she claimed to be a junior at Wichita State?
So why, then, is she using the past tense: "majored"?

Just more lies from "LaLiar."

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html