Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Last Resort #2
95 views
Skip to first unread message
Ken Arromdee
Oct 6, 2012, 4:44:33 PM10/6/12
to
1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
as a plot device, it explains too much.
2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
and would be after them in an instant.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
as a plot device, it explains too much.
2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
and would be after them in an instant.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
anim8rFSK
Oct 6, 2012, 6:57:58 PM10/6/12
to
In article <k4q57h$bqs$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
before they could possible get off a return shot.
The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
the airwaves.
> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
> and would be after them in an instant.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
> as a plot device, it explains too much.
Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
> as a plot device, it explains too much.
response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
before they could possible get off a return shot.
The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
the airwaves.
>
> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
It's not working.
> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
> and would be after them in an instant.
--
David Loewe, Jr.
Oct 6, 2012, 7:36:26 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>
>Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>before they could possible get off a return shot.
>
>The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>
>Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>before they could possible get off a return shot.
>
>The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
making a fool of yourself?
>since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
>we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
>the airwaves.
>>
>> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>
>It's not working.
>> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
>> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
>> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
>> and would be after them in an instant.
--
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
- Albert Einstein
anim8rFSK
Oct 6, 2012, 8:39:54 PM10/6/12
to
In article <qvf178te5psmq7sh4...@4ax.com>,
ass of yourself?
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> >
> >> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
> >> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
> >> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
> >> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
> >> as a plot device, it explains too much.
> >
> >Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
> >response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
> >own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
> >before they could possible get off a return shot.
> >
> >The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>
> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
> making a fool of yourself?
Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> >
> >> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
> >> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
> >> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
> >> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
> >> as a plot device, it explains too much.
> >
> >Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
> >response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
> >own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
> >before they could possible get off a return shot.
> >
> >The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>
> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
> making a fool of yourself?
ass of yourself?
>
> >since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
> >we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
> >the airwaves.
> >>
> >> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
> >> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
> >
> >It's not working.
>
> ...with you.
Or anyone with any intelligence, so it's working with you?
> >since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
> >we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
> >the airwaves.
> >>
> >> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
> >> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
> >
> >It's not working.
>
> ...with you.
>
> >> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
> >> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
> >> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
> >> and would be after them in an instant.
--
> >> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
> >> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
> >> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
> >> and would be after them in an instant.
--
JRStern
Oct 6, 2012, 10:18:25 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
Gee, and I missed the first two eps, and haven't the interest to play
them off the Interwebs.
How exactly did the original attempt to kill them fail?
More to the point, wtf kind of story arc do the writers have in mind
for this thing, or is that old-fashioned thinking, "story"? How can
it be resolved?
Is it really going to devolve to a detective story of who the bad
conspirators were who issued the bad orders, so we do a reveal, the
white hats gallup on stage, and everyone goes home to a tickertape
parade?
A show like Columbo where we see the crime in the opening minutes and
you watch the discovery is one thing, but when you have nukes in the
opening act, I dunno, it just sounds upside-down, and I hate shadowy
conspiracy plots anyway.
J.
wrote:
them off the Interwebs.
How exactly did the original attempt to kill them fail?
More to the point, wtf kind of story arc do the writers have in mind
for this thing, or is that old-fashioned thinking, "story"? How can
it be resolved?
Is it really going to devolve to a detective story of who the bad
conspirators were who issued the bad orders, so we do a reveal, the
white hats gallup on stage, and everyone goes home to a tickertape
parade?
A show like Columbo where we see the crime in the opening minutes and
you watch the discovery is one thing, but when you have nukes in the
opening act, I dunno, it just sounds upside-down, and I hate shadowy
conspiracy plots anyway.
J.
Adam H. Kerman
Oct 6, 2012, 11:07:25 PM10/6/12
to
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>>>1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>>>at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>>>is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>>>attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>>>as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>>Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>>response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>>own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>>before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>>The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>>making a fool of yourself?
>Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>ass of yourself?
A seamus sock has no other purpose.
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>>>1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>>>at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>>>is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>>>attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>>>as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>>Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>>response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>>own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>>before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>>The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>>making a fool of yourself?
>Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>ass of yourself?
anim8rFSK
Oct 7, 2012, 1:00:36 AM10/7/12
to
anim8rFSK
Oct 7, 2012, 1:04:57 AM10/7/12
to
In article <08p178hrdciaj63v8...@4ax.com>,
There have been 3 attempts to do *something* to them.
After the Colorado refused to nuke their target, another US sub, the
Illinois, fired on them but our heroic Captain saw it coming and dove
and sustained some unknown amount of damage but came through okay.
Then after he got to Taratupa, some B1s were sent in but he nuked
Annapolis and scared them off.
The next morning a half dozen godless Ruskies parachuted in and tried to
do ... we don't know what, and got themselves shot dead.
After the Colorado refused to nuke their target, another US sub, the
Illinois, fired on them but our heroic Captain saw it coming and dove
and sustained some unknown amount of damage but came through okay.
Then after he got to Taratupa, some B1s were sent in but he nuked
Annapolis and scared them off.
The next morning a half dozen godless Ruskies parachuted in and tried to
do ... we don't know what, and got themselves shot dead.
>
> More to the point, wtf kind of story arc do the writers have in mind
> for this thing, or is that old-fashioned thinking, "story"? How can
> it be resolved?
That's been a matter of some debate here. No consensus.
> More to the point, wtf kind of story arc do the writers have in mind
> for this thing, or is that old-fashioned thinking, "story"? How can
> it be resolved?
>
> Is it really going to devolve to a detective story of who the bad
> conspirators were who issued the bad orders, so we do a reveal, the
> white hats gallup on stage, and everyone goes home to a tickertape
> parade?
>
> A show like Columbo where we see the crime in the opening minutes and
> you watch the discovery is one thing, but when you have nukes in the
> opening act, I dunno, it just sounds upside-down, and I hate shadowy
> conspiracy plots anyway.
Yep.
> Is it really going to devolve to a detective story of who the bad
> conspirators were who issued the bad orders, so we do a reveal, the
> white hats gallup on stage, and everyone goes home to a tickertape
> parade?
>
> A show like Columbo where we see the crime in the opening minutes and
> you watch the discovery is one thing, but when you have nukes in the
> opening act, I dunno, it just sounds upside-down, and I hate shadowy
> conspiracy plots anyway.
BTR1701
Oct 7, 2012, 1:52:59 AM10/7/12
to
BTR1701
Oct 7, 2012, 1:52:59 AM10/7/12
to
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>
>>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>
>> Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>> response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>> own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>> before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>
>> The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>
> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
> making a fool of yourself?
Because it obviously twists your panties.
>
>> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>
>>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>
>> Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>> response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>> own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>> before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>
>> The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>
> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
> making a fool of yourself?
>>> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>>> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>>
>> It's not working.
>
> ...with you.
anim8rFSK
Oct 7, 2012, 2:04:23 AM10/7/12
to
In article
<493082371371278171.096410...@news.giganews.com>,
I'm thinking some incarnations of Lowe are though, especially as they're
using different addresses.
<493082371371278171.096410...@news.giganews.com>,
using different addresses.
Greg Hanson
Oct 7, 2012, 8:21:33 AM10/7/12
to
David Loewe, Jr.? A Seamus sock? You *must* be joking.
Hydrogen Sulfide
Oct 7, 2012, 10:10:20 AM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 03:07:25 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
41116> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
41116> A seamus sock has no other purpose.
Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
41116> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
41116> A seamus sock has no other purpose.
Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
Hydrogen Sulfide
Oct 7, 2012, 10:12:17 AM10/7/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:00:36 -0700, anim8rFSK wrote:
312> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
312> Yeah, I got seamused, didn't I? Geez.
What is "seamused", anim8rFSK, and what does it have to do with television?
312> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
312> Yeah, I got seamused, didn't I? Geez.
What is "seamused", anim8rFSK, and what does it have to do with television?
Hydrogen Sulfide
Oct 7, 2012, 10:13:39 AM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 08:21:33 -0400, Greg Hanson wrote:
2> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
2> *guffaw*
What does your amusement have to do with television, Hanson?
2> David Loewe, Jr.? A Seamus sock? You *must* be joking.
Who is "Seamus", Hanson? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
2> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
2> *guffaw*
What does your amusement have to do with television, Hanson?
2> David Loewe, Jr.? A Seamus sock? You *must* be joking.
Who is "Seamus", Hanson? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
Stan Brown
Oct 7, 2012, 10:16:37 AM10/7/12
to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 20:44:33 +0000 (UTC), Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
> and would be after them in an instant.
I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
>
> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
> and would be after them in an instant.
government operating without the knowledge of the official
government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
government has been replaced.
In favor of the latter is that Curry, who fired Chaplin merely for
asking that orders to start a war be verified, has been promoted.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Stan Brown
Oct 7, 2012, 10:17:07 AM10/7/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 19:18:25 -0700, JRStern wrote:
> Gee, and I missed the first two eps, and haven't the interest to play
> them off the Interwebs.
>
Is that some brand of VCR from the 1980s?
> Gee, and I missed the first two eps, and haven't the interest to play
> them off the Interwebs.
>
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 7, 2012, 10:34:57 AM10/7/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:39:54, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>> >> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>> >> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>> >> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>> >> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>> >
>> >Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>> >response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>> >own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>> >before they could possible get off a return shot.
>> >
>> >The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>
>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>> making a fool of yourself?
>
>Because it doesn't have any other name?
Yes, it does. It has been named onscreen. Sainte Marina.
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>> >> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>> >> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>> >> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>> >> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>> >
>> >Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>> >response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>> >own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>> >before they could possible get off a return shot.
>> >
>> >The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>
>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>> making a fool of yourself?
>
>Because it doesn't have any other name?
>Why do you insist on making an ass of yourself?
>> >since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
>> >we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
>> >the airwaves.
>> >>
>> >> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>> >> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>> >
>> >It's not working.
>>
>> ...with you.
>
>Or anyone with any intelligence, so it's working with you?
morally correct thing to do.
>> >> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
>> >> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
>> >> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
>> >> and would be after them in an instant.
--
Hell's coming with me!"
- Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp in Tombstone
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 7, 2012, 10:38:14 AM10/7/12
to
--
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
- General James N. Mattis
Minixie
Oct 7, 2012, 10:41:00 AM10/7/12
to
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 7, 2012, 11:02:43 AM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 00:52:59, BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>>
>>> Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>> response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>> own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>> before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>>
>>> The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>
>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>> making a fool of yourself?
>
> Because it obviously twists your panties.
I'm too busy laughing at his ignorant insistence to get my underwear in
a bunch.
>>>> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>>>> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>>>
>>> It's not working.
>>
>> ...with you.
>
>Well, with anyone with an IQ above 12.
No. Anyone who doesn't believe the same things he does. A few of us
have actually been to sea on a Trident. My Patrol Pin has a silver
star.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN_Deterrent_Patrol_insignia>
--
"Oderint Dum Metuant."
- Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus
wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>>
>>> Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>> response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>> own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>> before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>>
>>> The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>
>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>> making a fool of yourself?
>
> Because it obviously twists your panties.
a bunch.
>>>> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>>>> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>>>
>>> It's not working.
>>
>> ...with you.
>
>Well, with anyone with an IQ above 12.
have actually been to sea on a Trident. My Patrol Pin has a silver
star.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN_Deterrent_Patrol_insignia>
--
"Oderint Dum Metuant."
- Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus
David Loewe, Jr.
Oct 7, 2012, 11:30:30 AM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 10:41:00, Minixie <min...@vimbloo.invalid> wrote:
He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
front of his nose). Nor is it pronounced that way. Needless to say,
both addresses are mine. "David V. Loewe, Jr." AND "David Loewe, Jr."
are both the same person - me. The reason I use two different addresses
is a long story that has to do with being diagnosed with cancer,
believing that I'd be forced by finances into dropping my long-standing
mindspring.com address and setting up the charter one to deal with that.
In the end, I did not have to drop the address but did not want to drop
either one and so, now, alternate using them from post to post (trying
not to use one twice in a row in the same attribution header chain). But
paranoid idiots like anim will get their tin foil hats over nothing,
won't they?
--
"WHY, asks a Democrat leading a training session for fellow activists,
doesn't "Yes we can" work as a slogan any more? "Because we haven't,"
a jaded participant responds."
and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
front of his nose). Nor is it pronounced that way. Needless to say,
both addresses are mine. "David V. Loewe, Jr." AND "David Loewe, Jr."
are both the same person - me. The reason I use two different addresses
is a long story that has to do with being diagnosed with cancer,
believing that I'd be forced by finances into dropping my long-standing
mindspring.com address and setting up the charter one to deal with that.
In the end, I did not have to drop the address but did not want to drop
either one and so, now, alternate using them from post to post (trying
not to use one twice in a row in the same attribution header chain). But
paranoid idiots like anim will get their tin foil hats over nothing,
won't they?
--
"WHY, asks a Democrat leading a training session for fellow activists,
doesn't "Yes we can" work as a slogan any more? "Because we haven't,"
a jaded participant responds."
Greg Hanson
Oct 7, 2012, 12:40:27 PM10/7/12
to
for years.
Have you noticed the influx of goons from that kook newsgroup lately?
They're even crazier, nattering on constantly about some "derbyshit" or
similar and never even posting anything about TV here. (What kind of a name
is "derbyshit" anyway?!) Some of them even made some nonsensical remarks at
me recently, apparently thinking I was their guy.
And then there's that hydra/aqua-blanky thingy. I don't know *what* *his*
malfunction is.
My approach: killfile the ones that don't post anything interesting about
TV, and mostly ignore the rest when they say something stupid. And since
that aqua-thingy keeps morphing his from, mostly just ignore that one,
period.
Ken Arromdee
Oct 7, 2012, 12:42:54 PM10/7/12
to
In article <MPG.2adb58ced...@news.individual.net>,
and stay in business--launching nuclear weapons is a very public activity
and everyone who's not part of the conspiracy will make it their first
priority to track that conspiracy down. They can't be weak enough that
they need to use secondary channels, yet powerful enough that nobody important
will try to stop them.
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
>government operating without the knowledge of the official
>government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
>government has been replaced.
That was my point. A rogue shadow government can't launch nuclear weapons
>I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
>government operating without the knowledge of the official
>government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
>government has been replaced.
and stay in business--launching nuclear weapons is a very public activity
and everyone who's not part of the conspiracy will make it their first
priority to track that conspiracy down. They can't be weak enough that
they need to use secondary channels, yet powerful enough that nobody important
will try to stop them.
Adam H. Kerman
Oct 7, 2012, 12:53:52 PM10/7/12
to
JRStern
Oct 7, 2012, 1:02:33 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:42:54 +0000 (UTC), arro...@rahul.net (Ken
Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <MPG.2adb58ced...@news.individual.net>,
>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
>>government operating without the knowledge of the official
>>government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
>>government has been replaced.
>
>That was my point. A rogue shadow government can't launch nuclear weapons
>and stay in business--launching nuclear weapons is a very public activity
>and everyone who's not part of the conspiracy will make it their first
>priority to track that conspiracy down. They can't be weak enough that
>they need to use secondary channels, yet powerful enough that nobody important
>will try to stop them.
Then it must be somebody powerful using secondary channels ... like
Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <MPG.2adb58ced...@news.individual.net>,
>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
>>government operating without the knowledge of the official
>>government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
>>government has been replaced.
>
>That was my point. A rogue shadow government can't launch nuclear weapons
>and stay in business--launching nuclear weapons is a very public activity
>and everyone who's not part of the conspiracy will make it their first
>priority to track that conspiracy down. They can't be weak enough that
>they need to use secondary channels, yet powerful enough that nobody important
>will try to stop them.
Reagan in Iran-Contra only moreso.
I'm not sure how much sense that makes in this case, but it's probably
the basic model.
J.
Steve Bartman
Oct 7, 2012, 2:20:05 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>front of his nose).
FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>front of his nose).
the Tom Clancy ng. If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
boomer. He also posted quite a bit on the old pizza delivery ng in
that era.
From memory, but he ain't no sock.
Steve
anim8rFSK
Oct 7, 2012, 3:09:34 PM10/7/12
to
In article <sbh3781cub6h1o9mi...@4ax.com>,
Does he genuinely post from multiple addresses?
I don't think anybody is saying there never WAS a real Loewe, but
multiple people have been impersonated this week, including me.
I don't think anybody is saying there never WAS a real Loewe, but
multiple people have been impersonated this week, including me.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 7, 2012, 3:38:06 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:20:05, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30, "David Loewe, Jr."
>If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
>boomer.
ET1/SS (Reactor Operator) on the USS Michigan.
>He also posted quite a bit on the old pizza delivery ng in
>that era.
>
>From memory, but he ain't no sock.
Thanks.
Jim Gysin (Jim G) who posts here also knows me from other groups (rsfc
and rasftv). Of course, anim and some others also know me from rasftv,
so being accused of being by them seamus is rather silly.
--
"Everything is politics."
- Thomas Mann
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30, "David Loewe, Jr."
><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>>and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>>cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>>front of his nose).
>
>FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
>the Tom Clancy ng.
Yes. We went hammer and tongs a number of times.
>
>>He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>>and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>>cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>>front of his nose).
>
>FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
>the Tom Clancy ng.
>If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
>boomer.
>He also posted quite a bit on the old pizza delivery ng in
>that era.
>
>From memory, but he ain't no sock.
Jim Gysin (Jim G) who posts here also knows me from other groups (rsfc
and rasftv). Of course, anim and some others also know me from rasftv,
so being accused of being by them seamus is rather silly.
--
"Everything is politics."
- Thomas Mann
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 7, 2012, 3:40:43 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:09:34, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>> <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>> >and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>> >cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>> >front of his nose).
>>
>> FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
>> the Tom Clancy ng. If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
>> boomer. He also posted quite a bit on the old pizza delivery ng in
>> that era.
>>
>> From memory, but he ain't no sock.
>
>Does he genuinely post from multiple addresses?
>
>I don't think anybody is saying there never WAS a real Loewe, but
>multiple people have been impersonated this week, including me.
I use 2 different addresses and have done so since mid to late 2007
> Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>> <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>> >and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>> >cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>> >front of his nose).
>>
>> FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
>> the Tom Clancy ng. If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
>> boomer. He also posted quite a bit on the old pizza delivery ng in
>> that era.
>>
>> From memory, but he ain't no sock.
>
>Does he genuinely post from multiple addresses?
>
>I don't think anybody is saying there never WAS a real Loewe, but
>multiple people have been impersonated this week, including me.
after I was diagnosed with cancer and thought I'd have to give up the
mindspring address for financial reasons.
--
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist."
- Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones
Mason Barge
Oct 7, 2012, 4:14:00 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 03:07:25 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
wrote:
That actually isn't Seamus.
wrote:
Mason Barge
Oct 7, 2012, 4:14:59 PM10/7/12
to
although I'm naive sometimes.
Steve Bartman
Oct 7, 2012, 6:44:21 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:09:34 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article <sbh3781cub6h1o9mi...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>> <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>> >and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>> >cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>> >front of his nose).
>>
>> FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
>> the Tom Clancy ng. If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
>> boomer. He also posted quite a bit on the old pizza delivery ng in
>> that era.
>>
>> From memory, but he ain't no sock.
>
>Does he genuinely post from multiple addresses?
Don't know.
>I don't think anybody is saying there never WAS a real Loewe, but
>multiple people have been impersonated this week, including me.
Not pointing fingers at you specifically, but to me, a relative
newcomer here, it sometimes seems as if half the ng traffic concerns
identity and false names. Why is this such a deal to people?
Especially since the people who impersonate seem to get jollies form
it and are fed by responses.
Steve
wrote:
>In article <sbh3781cub6h1o9mi...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
>> <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>> >and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>> >cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>> >front of his nose).
>>
>> FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
>> the Tom Clancy ng. If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
>> boomer. He also posted quite a bit on the old pizza delivery ng in
>> that era.
>>
>> From memory, but he ain't no sock.
>
>Does he genuinely post from multiple addresses?
>I don't think anybody is saying there never WAS a real Loewe, but
>multiple people have been impersonated this week, including me.
newcomer here, it sometimes seems as if half the ng traffic concerns
identity and false names. Why is this such a deal to people?
Especially since the people who impersonate seem to get jollies form
it and are fed by responses.
Steve
Steve Bartman
Oct 7, 2012, 6:46:32 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:38:06 -0500, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:20:05, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>>>and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>>>cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>>>front of his nose).
>>
>>FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
>>the Tom Clancy ng.
>
>Yes. We went hammer and tongs a number of times.
>
>>If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
>>boomer.
>
>ET1/SS (Reactor Operator) on the USS Michigan.
"Missed it THAT much, Chief."
<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:20:05, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 10:30:30, "David Loewe, Jr."
>><dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>He's talking about me. But my name is up there in the attribution lines
>>>and it is not spelled "Lowe" (and this is a dig at "anim8rFSK" that he
>>>cannot spell something correctly when the proper spelling is right in
>>>front of his nose).
>>
>>FWIW, I have known this man on Usenet since the mid- to late-90s on
>>the Tom Clancy ng.
>
>Yes. We went hammer and tongs a number of times.
>
>>If memory serves he was a USN ET5 (ELT?) on a
>>boomer.
>
>ET1/SS (Reactor Operator) on the USS Michigan.
Also, thinking E-5 obviously. Meant ET2.
Steve
Stan Brown
Oct 7, 2012, 8:07:30 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:42:54 +0000 (UTC), Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.2adb58ced...@news.individual.net>,
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
> >government operating without the knowledge of the official
> >government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
> >government has been replaced.
>
> That was my point. A rogue shadow government can't launch nuclear weapons
> and stay in business--launching nuclear weapons is a very public activity
> and everyone who's not part of the conspiracy will make it their first
> priority to track that conspiracy down. They can't be weak enough that
> they need to use secondary channels, yet powerful enough that nobody important
> will try to stop them.
Not at the same time. But perhaps they were weak when they sent the
>
> In article <MPG.2adb58ced...@news.individual.net>,
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
> >government operating without the knowledge of the official
> >government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
> >government has been replaced.
>
> That was my point. A rogue shadow government can't launch nuclear weapons
> and stay in business--launching nuclear weapons is a very public activity
> and everyone who's not part of the conspiracy will make it their first
> priority to track that conspiracy down. They can't be weak enough that
> they need to use secondary channels, yet powerful enough that nobody important
> will try to stop them.
initial order, and in the ensuing weeks have consolidated their
takeover.
Or perhaps it's just a gaping plot hole, a la /Terra Nova/. I'm not
going to lose any sleep over it.
I did feel that the second episode dragged at several points, in
contrast to the very busy pilot.
William December Starr
Oct 7, 2012, 9:33:35 PM10/7/12
to
In article <iko378p655jjegmfe...@4ax.com>,
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
Seconded. The first part of that, I mean. Loewe can be obnoxious,
and really likes to argue with people, but he's a real person.
-- wds
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> said:
and really likes to argue with people, but he's a real person.
-- wds
William December Starr
Oct 7, 2012, 9:39:17 PM10/7/12
to
In article <08p178hrdciaj63v8...@4ax.com>,
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> said:
> A show like Columbo where we see the crime in the opening minutes
> and you watch the discovery is one thing, but when you have nukes
> in the opening act, I dunno, it just sounds upside-down, and I
> hate shadowy conspiracy plots anyway.
Did I ever tell you about my idea for the ultimate episode of
"Columbo"? It's about a Strategic Air Command general (Patrick
McGoohan) who murders his mistress and then starts WWIII to cover
it up. The title would be "Doctor Strangelove, I Presume?"
-- wds
JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> said:
> A show like Columbo where we see the crime in the opening minutes
> and you watch the discovery is one thing, but when you have nukes
> in the opening act, I dunno, it just sounds upside-down, and I
> hate shadowy conspiracy plots anyway.
Did I ever tell you about my idea for the ultimate episode of
"Columbo"? It's about a Strategic Air Command general (Patrick
McGoohan) who murders his mistress and then starts WWIII to cover
it up. The title would be "Doctor Strangelove, I Presume?"
-- wds
Dimensional Traveler
Oct 7, 2012, 10:32:18 PM10/7/12
to
> JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <k4q57h$bqs$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
>>> the airwaves.
>
> There have been 3 attempts to do *something* to them.
>
> After the Colorado refused to nuke their target, another US sub, the
> Illinois, fired on them but our heroic Captain saw it coming and dove
> and sustained some unknown amount of damage but came through okay.
>
> Then after he got to Taratupa, some B1s were sent in but he nuked
> Annapolis and scared them off.
>
> The next morning a half dozen godless Ruskies parachuted in and tried to
> do ... we don't know what, and got themselves shot dead.
The godless Ruskies are part of a US Government conspiracy to nuke Pakistan?
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
>
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <k4q57h$bqs$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
>>> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>>
>>> Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>> response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>> own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>> before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>>
>>> The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>>
>>>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>>
>>> Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>> response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>> own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>> before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>>
>>> The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>> since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
>>> we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
>>> the airwaves.
>>>>
>>>> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>>>> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>>>
>>> It's not working.
>>>
>>>> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>>>> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>>>
>>> It's not working.
>>>
>>>> If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
>>>> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
>>>> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
>>>> and would be after them in an instant.
>>
>>>> secondary channels. If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
>>>> small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
>>>> and would be after them in an instant.
>>
>> Gee, and I missed the first two eps, and haven't the interest to play
>> them off the Interwebs.
>>
>> How exactly did the original attempt to kill them fail?
>> them off the Interwebs.
>>
>
> There have been 3 attempts to do *something* to them.
>
> After the Colorado refused to nuke their target, another US sub, the
> Illinois, fired on them but our heroic Captain saw it coming and dove
> and sustained some unknown amount of damage but came through okay.
>
> Then after he got to Taratupa, some B1s were sent in but he nuked
> Annapolis and scared them off.
>
> The next morning a half dozen godless Ruskies parachuted in and tried to
> do ... we don't know what, and got themselves shot dead.
The godless Ruskies are part of a US Government conspiracy to nuke Pakistan?
--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.
anim8rFSK
Oct 7, 2012, 10:47:50 PM10/7/12
to
In article <50723b32$0$71205$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
See, the problem is, the writing on this show is SO bad that we have NO
idea what the Godless Ruskies plan was. They sent half a dozen guys to,
what, kill 150 submariners and steal a super sub and drive it back to
Moscow? Take it over and fire some nukes at people? Kill everybody and
sink it?
idea what the Godless Ruskies plan was. They sent half a dozen guys to,
what, kill 150 submariners and steal a super sub and drive it back to
Moscow? Take it over and fire some nukes at people? Kill everybody and
sink it?
anim8rFSK
Oct 7, 2012, 10:49:30 PM10/7/12
to
David Loewe, Jr.
Oct 7, 2012, 11:56:13 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 20:07:30, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:42:54, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
>> >government operating without the knowledge of the official
>> >government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
>> >government has been replaced.
>>
>> That was my point. A rogue shadow government can't launch nuclear weapons
>> and stay in business--launching nuclear weapons is a very public activity
>> and everyone who's not part of the conspiracy will make it their first
>> priority to track that conspiracy down. They can't be weak enough that
>> they need to use secondary channels, yet powerful enough that nobody important
>> will try to stop them.
>
>Not at the same time. But perhaps they were weak when they sent the
>initial order, and in the ensuing weeks have consolidated their
>takeover.
We have solid information that very little time has passed.
>Or perhaps it's just a gaping plot hole, a la /Terra Nova/. I'm not
>going to lose any sleep over it.
>
>I did feel that the second episode dragged at several points, in
>contrast to the very busy pilot.
--
"Just remember.....the back you stab today just might be attached to
the ass you have to kiss tomorrow."
- "Gamecock" on Nukeworker.com
wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:42:54, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >I think we're meant to believe that there's some sort of rogue shadow
>> >government operating without the knowledge of the official
>> >government, or else that there's been a coup and the elected
>> >government has been replaced.
>>
>> That was my point. A rogue shadow government can't launch nuclear weapons
>> and stay in business--launching nuclear weapons is a very public activity
>> and everyone who's not part of the conspiracy will make it their first
>> priority to track that conspiracy down. They can't be weak enough that
>> they need to use secondary channels, yet powerful enough that nobody important
>> will try to stop them.
>
>Not at the same time. But perhaps they were weak when they sent the
>initial order, and in the ensuing weeks have consolidated their
>takeover.
>Or perhaps it's just a gaping plot hole, a la /Terra Nova/. I'm not
>going to lose any sleep over it.
>
>I did feel that the second episode dragged at several points, in
>contrast to the very busy pilot.
--
the ass you have to kiss tomorrow."
- "Gamecock" on Nukeworker.com
Hunter
Oct 8, 2012, 2:47:15 AM10/8/12
to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 20:44:33 +0000 (UTC), arro...@rahul.net (Ken
You can use a submarine to sneak up on the Colorado, or at least try
to, as they did. That was done after they tried to launch an air
strike against the Colorado. The Colorado using the NATO listening
post saw them coming.
You can use a submarine to sneak up on the Colorado, or at least try
to, as they did. A submarine attack could be used because to launch
their missiles a SSBN has to stand still aka hover, to launch their
missiles so they are more vulnerable to submarine attack than air
attack. If they can keep the Colorado running they can't launch the
missiles. But off course they have the anti magnetic device that can
in a way render the sub "invisible" because the device nullifies the
sub's magnetism. What they, the US government (both the conspirators
and the people reacting thinking that Captain Chaplin is really at
fault) are going to do now is open to question. Maybe someone will
call Capt. Chaplin's bluff and attack him again.
Limited spoiler space for two old movies: "The Hunt for Red October"
and "Crimson Tide" Perhaps there shouldn't be since they are 22 and 16
years old respectively but here goes:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
Well, yeah that is the plot, just like in "The Hunt for Red October"
we were supposed to sympathize with Soviet Navy Captain Rameus and
some of his crew for stealing a Typhoon class SSBN from his own
country because it was built to launch a first strike against the
United States eventually.
Or even more relevant as a comparison to "Last Resort", in "Crimson
Tide" with Lt. CMDR Hunter for not concurring with Captain Ramsey's
wanting to launch on the last set of clear EAM orders to launch
because the very last message they got was garbled because it was cut
off during an attack (it turned out it was a order NOT to launch). If
Hunter hadn't spoken up a all out nuclear war could've needlessly
started.
That is the whole point it is a conspiracy by some in the government
including it seems the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
That is what the cover story since Chaplin and Kendal didn't play
ball so they had an attack sub the "Illinois" try to sink them. The
public story is for about the Pakistanis attacking an American
submarine without warning and sinking her was the way to justify a
Nuclear strike against Pakistan as "Plan B" The conspirators thinking
the "Colorado" was sunk they went to the President and the American
people with the cover story. The conspirators *now* with Presidential
authorization, then had a warship launched two nuclear armed cruise
missiles at Pakistan in "retaliation". The reappearance of the USS
Colorado put a hole in their "Plan B". "Plan A" ws to have the
Colorado do it of course Don't know what the coverstory would've been
if Chaplin and Kendal blindly followed orders even after seeing
"Hannah Montana" on screen..
The conspirators are obviously denying what Captain Chaplin is saying
and saying he is lying and further ironically depicting him as crazy
because he launched a nuclear weapon at the US cost (I support it
because if he didn't then they would've been overwhelmed with
attackers). Look at the pilot again skip to the TV news report to see
exactly what the cover story was.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Arromdee) wrote:
>1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>as a plot device, it explains too much.
-----
>1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>as a plot device, it explains too much.
You can use a submarine to sneak up on the Colorado, or at least try
to, as they did. That was done after they tried to launch an air
strike against the Colorado. The Colorado using the NATO listening
post saw them coming.
You can use a submarine to sneak up on the Colorado, or at least try
to, as they did. A submarine attack could be used because to launch
their missiles a SSBN has to stand still aka hover, to launch their
missiles so they are more vulnerable to submarine attack than air
attack. If they can keep the Colorado running they can't launch the
missiles. But off course they have the anti magnetic device that can
in a way render the sub "invisible" because the device nullifies the
sub's magnetism. What they, the US government (both the conspirators
and the people reacting thinking that Captain Chaplin is really at
fault) are going to do now is open to question. Maybe someone will
call Capt. Chaplin's bluff and attack him again.
>
>2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
------
>2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
Limited spoiler space for two old movies: "The Hunt for Red October"
and "Crimson Tide" Perhaps there shouldn't be since they are 22 and 16
years old respectively but here goes:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
Well, yeah that is the plot, just like in "The Hunt for Red October"
we were supposed to sympathize with Soviet Navy Captain Rameus and
some of his crew for stealing a Typhoon class SSBN from his own
country because it was built to launch a first strike against the
United States eventually.
Or even more relevant as a comparison to "Last Resort", in "Crimson
Tide" with Lt. CMDR Hunter for not concurring with Captain Ramsey's
wanting to launch on the last set of clear EAM orders to launch
because the very last message they got was garbled because it was cut
off during an attack (it turned out it was a order NOT to launch). If
Hunter hadn't spoken up a all out nuclear war could've needlessly
started.
>
>If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
>secondary channels.
>--------
>If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
>secondary channels.
That is the whole point it is a conspiracy by some in the government
including it seems the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
>
>If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
>small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
>and would be after them in an instant.
----
>If they did need to use secondary channels, they are a
>small enough faction that big parts of the US government aren't behind them
>and would be after them in an instant.
That is what the cover story since Chaplin and Kendal didn't play
ball so they had an attack sub the "Illinois" try to sink them. The
public story is for about the Pakistanis attacking an American
submarine without warning and sinking her was the way to justify a
Nuclear strike against Pakistan as "Plan B" The conspirators thinking
the "Colorado" was sunk they went to the President and the American
people with the cover story. The conspirators *now* with Presidential
authorization, then had a warship launched two nuclear armed cruise
missiles at Pakistan in "retaliation". The reappearance of the USS
Colorado put a hole in their "Plan B". "Plan A" ws to have the
Colorado do it of course Don't know what the coverstory would've been
if Chaplin and Kendal blindly followed orders even after seeing
"Hannah Montana" on screen..
The conspirators are obviously denying what Captain Chaplin is saying
and saying he is lying and further ironically depicting him as crazy
because he launched a nuclear weapon at the US cost (I support it
because if he didn't then they would've been overwhelmed with
attackers). Look at the pilot again skip to the TV news report to see
exactly what the cover story was.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Hunter
Oct 8, 2012, 5:00:24 AM10/8/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article <k4q57h$bqs$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
wrote:
>In article <k4q57h$bqs$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>,
> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>
>
>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>
>Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>before they could possible get off a return shot.
-----
>response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>before they could possible get off a return shot.
Exactly.
>
>The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
>we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
>the airwaves.
-----
>The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>since we obviously are, and the Illinois was willing to nuke Pakistan,
>we should absolutely nuke the LAST RESORT off the face of the Earth, and
>the airwaves.
The trouble is with the Nato early warning system they could see the
ICBM coming. and frie off a retalitory respons with the remaining 17
missles. Oh and the fact that there are innocent people in the way and
a
>>
>> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>
>It's not working.
>> 2) It seems to me that the "we only got the launch order through secondary
>> channels" idea is there just to make the viewers sympathize with the crew.
>
-----
Maybee not with you and I don't get why. If you were in charge of a
SSBN and you knew that a secondary channel that is only used when the
primary one is destroyed in this case Washington DC, and you see that
everything is just fine at home you would still launch the missles
anyway? You won't ask questions?
(snip)
William December Starr
Oct 8, 2012, 4:28:03 AM10/8/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-EDDB0...@news.easynews.com>,
even know there was a joke, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think
that McGoohan was at least in a tie for "Most times playing a killer
on 'Columbo'.")
-- wds
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> Did I ever tell you about my idea for the ultimate episode of
>> "Columbo"? It's about a Strategic Air Command general (Patrick
>> McGoohan) who murders his mistress and then starts WWIII to cover
>> it up. The title would be "Doctor Strangelove, I Presume?"
>
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> Did I ever tell you about my idea for the ultimate episode of
>> "Columbo"? It's about a Strategic Air Command general (Patrick
>> McGoohan) who murders his mistress and then starts WWIII to cover
>> it up. The title would be "Doctor Strangelove, I Presume?"
>
> Will there be a Red Rover?
Snork. (For the sake of anybody who didn't get the joke, or didn't
even know there was a joke, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think
that McGoohan was at least in a tie for "Most times playing a killer
on 'Columbo'.")
-- wds
Hunter
Oct 8, 2012, 7:38:47 AM10/8/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:39:54 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article <qvf178te5psmq7sh4...@4ax.com>,
The name of the island is Sainte Marina, which doesnt' actually exist.
wrote:
>In article <qvf178te5psmq7sh4...@4ax.com>,
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>> >> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>> >> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>> >> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>> >> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>> >
>> >Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>> >response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>> >own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>> >before they could possible get off a return shot.
>> >
>>
>> > arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>> >> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>> >> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>> >> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>> >> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>> >
>> >Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>> >response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>> >own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>> >before they could possible get off a return shot.
>> >
>> >The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>
>>
>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>> making a fool of yourself?
>
>Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>ass of yourself?
-----
>> making a fool of yourself?
>
>Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>ass of yourself?
The name of the island is Sainte Marina, which doesnt' actually exist.
Obveeus
Oct 8, 2012, 8:00:35 AM10/8/12
to
extra-curricular sub-jacking. It was a highly specialized commando team
trained to take over islands, invade submarines, and then act as a 6 man sub
crew and pilot the boat back to Russian waters. I'm not sure how the 6 guys
were going to do all the work of an entire sub crew, but then again maybe
they only needed 3 or 4 guys to do it and the rest were just backup men in
case someone got shot in the gunplay with the 150 or so members of the sub
crew and whatever sland support they had?
Obveeus
Oct 8, 2012, 8:07:31 AM10/8/12
to
"Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Well, yeah that is the plot, just like in "The Hunt for Red October"
> we were supposed to sympathize with Soviet Navy Captain Rameus and
> some of his crew for stealing a Typhoon class SSBN from his own
> country because it was built to launch a first strike against the
> United States eventually.
>>If the whole US government was behind this, they'd have no reason to use
>>secondary channels.
>>--------
> That is the whole point it is a conspiracy by some in the government
> including it seems the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Either this show will have to reveal that the President is being held
hostage and coerced into repeatedly lying to the American people or this
show will have to reveal that the President of the United States is leading
the 'conspiracy'.
Obveeus
Oct 8, 2012, 8:14:22 AM10/8/12
to
initiate a nuclear exchange, so no order to fire before the destruction of
Washington DC is possible.
Additionally, the show portrayed that the US fired several nuclear weapons
at Pakistan and yet Pakistan did not retaliate by firing off any of their
100 or so missiles in return. It seems unlikely that Pakistan would show
such amazing restraint when faced with such evil-doers.
Hunter
Oct 8, 2012, 9:47:18 AM10/8/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 23:04:23 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article
><493082371371278171.096410...@news.giganews.com>,
>
>I'm thinking some incarnations of Lowe are though, especially as they're
>using different addresses.
-----
David Loewe has been around for years.
wrote:
>In article
><493082371371278171.096410...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could
>> >>>>> launch
>> >>>>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after
>> >>>>> them
>> >>>>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to
>> >>>>> being
>> >>>>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a
>> >>>>> missile--
>> >>>>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>> >
>> >>>> Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>> >>>> response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>> >>>> own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>> >>>> before they could possible get off a return shot.
>> >
>> >>>> The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>> >
>> >>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>> >>> making a fool of yourself?
>> >
>> >> Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>> >> ass of yourself?
>> >
>> >>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could
>> >>>>> launch
>> >>>>> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after
>> >>>>> them
>> >>>>> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to
>> >>>>> being
>> >>>>> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a
>> >>>>> missile--
>> >>>>> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>> >
>> >>>> Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>> >>>> response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>> >>>> own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>> >>>> before they could possible get off a return shot.
>> >
>> >>>> The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>> >
>> >>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>> >>> making a fool of yourself?
>> >
>> >> Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>> >> ass of yourself?
>> >
>> > A seamus sock has no other purpose.
>>
>> Oh, come on. Anim8r is not seamus.
>>
>
>I'm thinking some incarnations of Lowe are though, especially as they're
>using different addresses.
-----
David Loewe has been around for years.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 8, 2012, 9:45:25 AM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:38:47, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter)
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:39:54, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> > arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>> >> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>> >> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>> >> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>> >> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>> >
>>> >Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>> >response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>> >own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>> >before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>> >
>>> >The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>>
>>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>>> making a fool of yourself?
>>
>>Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>>ass of yourself?
>-----
>The name of the island is Sainte Marina, which doesnt' actually exist.
Neither did Taratupa.
--
"The morning after blues from my head down to my shoes
Carefree Highway let me slip away let me slip away on you."
- Gordon Lightfoot
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:39:54, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> > arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> 1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>> >> at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>> >> is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>> >> attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>> >> as a plot device, it explains too much.
>>> >
>>> >Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>> >response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>> >own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>> >before they could possible get off a return shot.
>>> >
>>> >The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>>>
>>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>>> making a fool of yourself?
>>
>>Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>>ass of yourself?
>-----
>The name of the island is Sainte Marina, which doesnt' actually exist.
--
"The morning after blues from my head down to my shoes
Carefree Highway let me slip away let me slip away on you."
- Gordon Lightfoot
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 8, 2012, 10:00:22 AM10/8/12
to
at what should be Islamabad - the capital of Pakistan) to me.
B) They don't have weapons capable of reaching the US.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Delivery_systems>
C) Targeting the ships is problematic as they will move away at high
speed after launch detection and probably be far enough away to not be
sunk by the time the nuke goes off. They also have missile defenses
good against cruise missiles AND ballistic missiles (Aegis).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System>
D) One thing you target in a strike like the one shown is the nuclear
capability of whoever you nuke.
--
"Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend
Do it in the name of heaven and you can justify it in the end
There won't be any trumpets blowing come the Judgement Day
And on the bloody morning after....One Tin Soldier rides away."
One Tin Soldier - The Legend Of Billy Jack
Obveeus
Oct 8, 2012, 10:23:53 AM10/8/12
to
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:14:22, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Additionally, the show portrayed that the US fired several nuclear weapons
>>at Pakistan and yet Pakistan did not retaliate by firing off any of their
>>100 or so missiles in return. It seems unlikely that Pakistan would show
>>such amazing restraint when faced with such evil-doers.
>
> A) It looked like a decapitating strike (the longer track seemed to end
> at what should be Islamabad - the capital of Pakistan) to me.
Taking out a country's leader seldom prevents the country's military from
>>Additionally, the show portrayed that the US fired several nuclear weapons
>>at Pakistan and yet Pakistan did not retaliate by firing off any of their
>>100 or so missiles in return. It seems unlikely that Pakistan would show
>>such amazing restraint when faced with such evil-doers.
>
> A) It looked like a decapitating strike (the longer track seemed to end
> at what should be Islamabad - the capital of Pakistan) to me.
continuing to make decisions.
> B) They don't have weapons capable of reaching the US.
or out into the ocean (set to detinate at high altiude and EMP away US
military presense).
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Delivery_systems>
>
> C) Targeting the ships is problematic as they will move away at high
> speed after launch detection and probably be far enough away to not be
> sunk by the time the nuke goes off. They also have missile defenses
> good against cruise missiles AND ballistic missiles (Aegis).
any appreciable distance in the short amount of time they would have to
move. Meanwhile, the inbound nuclear missile does not have to hit a warship
directly to damage it. With 100 nuclear missiles, Pakistan could
effectively 'carpet bomb' the Arabian Sea around the location of the US
fleet(s).
> D) One thing you target in a strike like the one shown is the nuclear
> capability of whoever you nuke.
and there would be no reason to restrict their retaliatory attack to
military installations when the US fired on civilian targets first.
Instead, Pakistan could counter-target civilian locations in Israel, India,
or even southern Europe. The US would call that an act of 'terrorism'
while claiming that their own military aggression (that took a far greater
number of civilian lives) was strategic military action...just as happens
now with non-nuclear warfare. Would such a response be 'fair' to the third
party countries? No, but it would put the greatest amount of pressure on
the US to stop bombing Pakistan.
anim8rFSK
Oct 8, 2012, 10:40:39 AM10/8/12
to
In article <k4u2qj$emn$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <anim8rfsk-EDDB0...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >
> >> Did I ever tell you about my idea for the ultimate episode of
> >> "Columbo"? It's about a Strategic Air Command general (Patrick
> >> McGoohan) who murders his mistress and then starts WWIII to cover
> >> it up. The title would be "Doctor Strangelove, I Presume?"
> >
> > Will there be a Red Rover?
>
> Snork. (For the sake of anybody who didn't get the joke, or didn't
> even know there was a joke, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think
> that McGoohan was at least in a tie for "Most times playing a killer
> on 'Columbo'.")
>
> -- wds
And he wore his negative Prisoner jacket on one of them!
> In article <anim8rfsk-EDDB0...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >
> >> Did I ever tell you about my idea for the ultimate episode of
> >> "Columbo"? It's about a Strategic Air Command general (Patrick
> >> McGoohan) who murders his mistress and then starts WWIII to cover
> >> it up. The title would be "Doctor Strangelove, I Presume?"
> >
> > Will there be a Red Rover?
>
> Snork. (For the sake of anybody who didn't get the joke, or didn't
> even know there was a joke, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think
> that McGoohan was at least in a tie for "Most times playing a killer
> on 'Columbo'.")
>
> -- wds
William December Starr
Oct 8, 2012, 12:11:25 PM10/8/12
to
In article <k4unlp$sp9$1...@dont-email.me>,
side of the world -- would expect that if Pakistan was nuked its
immediate spasm response would be aimed at India.
-- wds
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> said:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> A) It looked like a decapitating strike (the longer track seemed
>> to end at what should be Islamabad - the capital of Pakistan) to
>> me.
>
> Taking out a country's leader seldom prevents the country's
> military from continuing to make decisions.
>
>> B) They don't have weapons capable of reaching the US.
>
> Not relevent. The response would be to fire nukes towards Israel
> (US tool) or out into the ocean (set to detinate at high altiude
> and EMP away US military presense).
I -- admittedly, a wholly underinformed civilian living on the other
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> A) It looked like a decapitating strike (the longer track seemed
>> to end at what should be Islamabad - the capital of Pakistan) to
>> me.
>
> Taking out a country's leader seldom prevents the country's
> military from continuing to make decisions.
>
>> B) They don't have weapons capable of reaching the US.
>
> Not relevent. The response would be to fire nukes towards Israel
> (US tool) or out into the ocean (set to detinate at high altiude
> and EMP away US military presense).
side of the world -- would expect that if Pakistan was nuked its
immediate spasm response would be aimed at India.
-- wds
anim8rFSK
Oct 8, 2012, 12:30:05 PM10/8/12
to
wrote:
Do we know they were civilian targets? I think Nato Girl said something
about the number of casualties, but that doesn't mean that they don't
have a honking military installation in the middle of a city or
something, hoping we won't bomb 'em.
about the number of casualties, but that doesn't mean that they don't
have a honking military installation in the middle of a city or
something, hoping we won't bomb 'em.
Obveeus
Oct 8, 2012, 1:14:32 PM10/8/12
to
Obveeus
Oct 8, 2012, 1:15:32 PM10/8/12
to
just a military target.
Mason Barge
Oct 8, 2012, 1:26:51 PM10/8/12
to
stupid as it first seems.
It might be worth it to them just to get some photographs and/or computer
data. And they have an excuse for the attack.
David Loewe, Jr.
Oct 8, 2012, 1:29:14 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:23:53, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:14:22, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Additionally, the show portrayed that the US fired several nuclear weapons
>>>at Pakistan and yet Pakistan did not retaliate by firing off any of their
>>>100 or so missiles in return. It seems unlikely that Pakistan would show
>>>such amazing restraint when faced with such evil-doers.
>>
>> A) It looked like a decapitating strike (the longer track seemed to end
>> at what should be Islamabad - the capital of Pakistan) to me.
>
>Taking out a country's leader seldom prevents the country's military from
>continuing to make decisions.
It causes delays and the leader isn't the only one that would be taken
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:14:22, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Additionally, the show portrayed that the US fired several nuclear weapons
>>>at Pakistan and yet Pakistan did not retaliate by firing off any of their
>>>100 or so missiles in return. It seems unlikely that Pakistan would show
>>>such amazing restraint when faced with such evil-doers.
>>
>> A) It looked like a decapitating strike (the longer track seemed to end
>> at what should be Islamabad - the capital of Pakistan) to me.
>
>Taking out a country's leader seldom prevents the country's military from
>continuing to make decisions.
out by a strike at Islamabad.
To illustrate, a 475 KT explosion (as in the W88s presumed to have hit
Pakistan) centered on the Lincoln Memorial would take out the Capitol,
White House *and* Pentagon.
>> B) They don't have weapons capable of reaching the US.
>
>Not relevent. The response would be to fire nukes towards Israel (US tool)
>or out into the ocean (set to detinate at high altiude and EMP away US
>military presense).
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Delivery_systems>
>>
>> C) Targeting the ships is problematic as they will move away at high
>> speed after launch detection and probably be far enough away to not be
>> sunk by the time the nuke goes off. They also have missile defenses
>> good against cruise missiles AND ballistic missiles (Aegis).
>
>I don't buy that at all. A fleet of US military ships is not going to move
>any appreciable distance in the short amount of time they would have to
>move.
to figure out what happened, prep the response (including targeting),
launch and for the missiles to arrive on target the ships are over 17
miles away from the place where they shot from. Since you don't know
which direction they went, you now have to cover over 910 square miles.
Another minute adds 60 square miles to the total.
So does the next minute.
The next adds over 65 miles.
Do you see the magnitude of the problem?
And, of course, they don't all have to go the same direction either.
>Meanwhile, the inbound nuclear missile does not have to hit a warship
>directly to damage it. With 100 nuclear missiles, Pakistan could
>effectively 'carpet bomb' the Arabian Sea around the location of the US
>fleet(s).
If you had read the whole article I linked to (and not just the part I
sent you to), you'd know that a significant portion of the Pakistani
arsenal consists of HEU weapons and that HEU has a much larger critical
mass - which means those cannot be made small enough to fit on or be
carried by a missile.
I also note that you completely ignore the missile defenses I mentioned.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System>
Remember these?
>> D) One thing you target in a strike like the one shown is the nuclear
>> capability of whoever you nuke.
>
>Nope. Pakistan isn't going to win an exchange of attacks on missile silos
>and there would be no reason to restrict their retaliatory attack to
>military installations when the US fired on civilian targets first.
My point was that the US strikes would have targeted *Pakistan's*
nuclear capability. That is why I said "like the one SHOWN."
>Instead, Pakistan could counter-target civilian locations in Israel,
>India,
Why? India didn't do anything and would turn Pakistan's cities into
glass in retaliation.
>or even southern Europe.
Even further out of range than Israel.
>The US would call that an act of 'terrorism'
>while claiming that their own military aggression (that took a far greater
>number of civilian lives) was strategic military action...just as happens
>now with non-nuclear warfare. Would such a response be 'fair' to the third
>party countries? No, but it would put the greatest amount of pressure on
>the US to stop bombing Pakistan.
--
"Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow share their dreams
With you and me"
- Klaus Meine
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 8, 2012, 1:29:50 PM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 03:07:25, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:57:58, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
>>>>>1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>>>>at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>>>>is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>>>>attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>>>>as a plot device, it explains too much.
>
>>>>Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>>>response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>>>own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>>>before they could possible get off a return shot.
>
>>>>The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>
>>>>arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
>>>>>1) If the US can't send a missile at the island because they could launch
>>>>>at Washington in retaliation, why is it that sending submarines after them
>>>>>is a viable idea? Surely they could nuke Washington in response to being
>>>>>attacked by submarines as easily as they could in response to a missile--
>>>>>as a plot device, it explains too much.
>
>>>>Because sending B1s after them gives them enough notice to fire off a
>>>>response. The Illinois could sneak up (especially after it gets it's
>>>>own cloak) and fire a missile and blow them off the face of the Earth
>>>>before they could possible get off a return shot.
>
>>>>The only hesitation would be, are we willing to nuke Teratupa, and,
>
>>>You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you insist on
>>>making a fool of yourself?
>
>>Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>>ass of yourself?
>
>>>making a fool of yourself?
>
>>Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on making an
>>ass of yourself?
>
>A seamus sock has no other purpose.
Jim Gysin knows me from another group.
--
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- First Baron Acton, 1834 - 1902
Greg Hanson
Oct 8, 2012, 1:37:24 PM10/8/12
to
person too. Even if one we find obnoxious. :)
anim8rFSK
Oct 8, 2012, 1:38:33 PM10/8/12
to
In article <k4v1nl$vsd$2...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:
What if there aren't any isolated military targets?
wrote:
Greg Hanson
Oct 8, 2012, 1:46:31 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:14:22 -0400, Obveeus wrote:
> Additionally, the show portrayed that the US fired several nuclear weapons
> at Pakistan and yet Pakistan did not retaliate by firing off any of their
> 100 or so missiles in return. It seems unlikely that Pakistan would show
> such amazing restraint when faced with such evil-doers.
They don't have a missile capable of reaching any US territory. But for all
> Additionally, the show portrayed that the US fired several nuclear weapons
> at Pakistan and yet Pakistan did not retaliate by firing off any of their
> 100 or so missiles in return. It seems unlikely that Pakistan would show
> such amazing restraint when faced with such evil-doers.
we know there's a Pakistani nuke in a shipping container on its way to New
York's harbors right now.
anim8rFSK
Oct 8, 2012, 2:15:07 PM10/8/12
to
In article <0336781pvhdu4e0qt...@4ax.com>,
Right, but we never found out what they wanted, and traitor murderer
Captain said they were trying to steal the boat, which is just stupid.
Captain said they were trying to steal the boat, which is just stupid.
hygr0phoru5
Oct 8, 2012, 2:20:36 PM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:14:59 -0400, Mason Barge wrote:
17> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
17> No, he's been around a long time.
What does your classic pontification have to do with television, Barge?
17> I'm fairly sure it isn't seamus, although I'm naive sometimes.
Who is "seamus", Barge? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
17> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
17> No, he's been around a long time.
What does your classic pontification have to do with television, Barge?
17> I'm fairly sure it isn't seamus, although I'm naive sometimes.
Who is "seamus", Barge? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
hygr0phoru5
Oct 8, 2012, 2:21:48 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:37:24 -0400, Greg Hanson wrote:
3> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
3> Unless you think his posts are generated by an AI robot, Seamus is a
3> real person too. Even if one we find obnoxious. :)
Who is "Seamus", Hanson? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
3> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
3> Unless you think his posts are generated by an AI robot, Seamus is a
3> real person too. Even if one we find obnoxious. :)
Who is "Seamus", Hanson? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 8, 2012, 2:22:18 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:37:24, Greg Hanson <greg.ha...@gmail.invalid>
wrote:
>On 7 Oct 2012 21:33:35, William December Starr wrote:
>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you
>>>>>>> insist on making a fool of yourself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on
>>>>>> making an ass of yourself?
>>>>>
>>>>> A seamus sock has no other purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I got seamused, didn't I? Geez.
>>>
>>> No, he's been around a long time. I'm fairly sure it isn't
>>> seamus, although I'm naive sometimes.
>>
>> Seconded. The first part of that, I mean. Loewe can be obnoxious,
>> and really likes to argue with people, but he's a real person.
>
>Unless you think his posts are generated by an AI robot, Seamus is a real
>person too. Even if one we find obnoxious. :)
See signature...
--
"Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt."
- Gaius Julius Caesar
wrote:
>On 7 Oct 2012 21:33:35, William December Starr wrote:
>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've already been told that it isn't "Taratupa." Why do you
>>>>>>> insist on making a fool of yourself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it doesn't have any other name? Why do you insist on
>>>>>> making an ass of yourself?
>>>>>
>>>>> A seamus sock has no other purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I got seamused, didn't I? Geez.
>>>
>>> No, he's been around a long time. I'm fairly sure it isn't
>>> seamus, although I'm naive sometimes.
>>
>> Seconded. The first part of that, I mean. Loewe can be obnoxious,
>> and really likes to argue with people, but he's a real person.
>
>Unless you think his posts are generated by an AI robot, Seamus is a real
>person too. Even if one we find obnoxious. :)
--
"Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt."
- Gaius Julius Caesar
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 8, 2012, 2:24:14 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:15:32, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Nope. Pakistan isn't going to win an exchange of attacks on missile
>>> silos
>>> and there would be no reason to restrict their retaliatory attack to
>>> military installations when the US fired on civilian targets first.
>>
>> Do we know they were civilian targets? I think Nato Girl said something
>> about the number of casualties, but that doesn't mean that they don't
>> have a honking military installation in the middle of a city or
>> something, hoping we won't bomb 'em.
>
>If you kill a million plus people, you cannot logically claim that it was
>just a military target.
So...
>>> Nope. Pakistan isn't going to win an exchange of attacks on missile
>>> silos
>>> and there would be no reason to restrict their retaliatory attack to
>>> military installations when the US fired on civilian targets first.
>>
>> Do we know they were civilian targets? I think Nato Girl said something
>> about the number of casualties, but that doesn't mean that they don't
>> have a honking military installation in the middle of a city or
>> something, hoping we won't bomb 'em.
>
>If you kill a million plus people, you cannot logically claim that it was
>just a military target.
All missile silos should be in the hearts of large cities?
Excuse me?!?
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
hygr0phoru5
Oct 8, 2012, 2:25:45 PM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:38:06 -0500, David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
2> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
2> Yes. We went hammer and tongs a number of times.
What does that have to do with television, Loewe?
2> ET1/SS (Reactor Operator) on the USS Michigan.
What does that have to do with television, Loewe?
2> Thanks.
What does your gratitude towards Bartman have to do with television,
Loewe?
2> Jim Gysin (Jim G) who posts here also knows me from other groups (rsfc
2> and rasftv).
What does that have to do with television, Loewe?
2> Of course, anim and some others also know me from rasftv,
2> so being accused of being by them seamus is rather silly.
Who is "seamus", Loewe? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
2> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
2> Yes. We went hammer and tongs a number of times.
What does that have to do with television, Loewe?
2> ET1/SS (Reactor Operator) on the USS Michigan.
What does that have to do with television, Loewe?
2> Thanks.
What does your gratitude towards Bartman have to do with television,
Loewe?
2> Jim Gysin (Jim G) who posts here also knows me from other groups (rsfc
2> and rasftv).
What does that have to do with television, Loewe?
2> Of course, anim and some others also know me from rasftv,
2> so being accused of being by them seamus is rather silly.
Who is "seamus", Loewe? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
hygr0phoru5
Oct 8, 2012, 2:26:57 PM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:53:52 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
41117> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
41117> The act of condemning your own sock puppets doesn't work, seamus.
Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
41117> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
41117> The act of condemning your own sock puppets doesn't work, seamus.
Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
hygr0phoru5
Oct 8, 2012, 2:27:48 PM10/8/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 16:14:00 -0400, Mason Barge wrote:
18> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
18> That actually isn't Seamus.
Who is "Seamus", Barge? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
18> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
18> That actually isn't Seamus.
Who is "Seamus", Barge? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
Message has been deleted
hygr0phoru5
Oct 8, 2012, 2:48:16 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:40:57 -0400, "Hydro.Blanky", an obvious murphy
sock, wrote:
NaN> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
NaN> Greg Hanson (derbyshire) twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012
NaN> posted as news in <k4v30l$jnt$1...@news.mixmin.net>
NaN> and as - "PAUL G. "TWO-SOCKS" DERBYSHIRE!"
What do your paranoia and your URL have to do with television, murphy?
NaN> /...\
What does that have to do with television, murphy?
NaN> yeup. dead right seamus is real, seamus mcrae that is. another person
NaN> whose real life existence you took and trashed on the ooznetz. i
NaN> read it in the old news.
What do your unsubstantiated claims about Greg Hanson have to do with
television, murphy?
NaN> what has "greg hanson" ever done to you, paul?
Who is "paul", murphy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
NaN> __________________________________________________________
What does that have to do with television, murphy?
NaN> Hydra-Blanket - Usenet Agent Provocateur
NaN> [Systems Coordinator of that Murphy Cabal]
What do your increasingly-elaborate delusions have to do with television,
murphy?
NaN> Visit the Page we Occupy -
What do your URLs have to do with television, murphy?
NaN> And be sure to sign up and become a member of that
NaN> Murph...@aioe.news.helpdesk
What does your bogus email address have to do with television, murphy?
There is not currently a top-level domain ".helpdesk", murphy. Still
suffering from Internet how-to cluelessness, murphy?
NaN> Need to book est...@aioe.org
NaN> Call the office use...@aioe.org
What does your attempt to cause your own NSP's administrator to get
spammed with off-topic kooky foamage have to do with television, murphy?
You're rapidly running out of NSPs that will tolerate you, murphy, so
your continual badmouthing of AIOE's administrator, and now this attempt
to flood his inbox, are exceptionally unwise.
I don't see anything in your post with any apparent relationship to
television, murphy.
"violating one basic rule in continually posting to or creating "off
topic" messages is a violation of group's charters."
--murphy
How ironic.
"I had 'volunteered (years back) to support those who do endeavor
to provide free Free Usenet access, support those who offered
subscription based Free Usenet access, nothing more than
cooperation expected in return for what has been many
thousands of hours of work. I note most of those I joined with
are either deceased, severely disabled, or plain ole' MIA..
now it is my Time. ...
You just read my last. ...
For those who think they see me in future times I can only wish
you severe Tinnitus in your dreams. For those who know me
well (eMail, whatever) and see me, know I will be smiling also.
It is to you I say "adieu mein frenz and adios .. grazie' [hugs]
for all the Good Times! May you and yours always bear well
with all Life brings you".
/0ut"
--murphy
http://www.uffnet.com/kookkamp/goodbye.htm
And some people wonder why I call them Famous Last Words.
sock, wrote:
NaN> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
NaN> Greg Hanson (derbyshire) twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012
NaN> posted as news in <k4v30l$jnt$1...@news.mixmin.net>
NaN> and as - "PAUL G. "TWO-SOCKS" DERBYSHIRE!"
What do your paranoia and your URL have to do with television, murphy?
NaN> /...\
What does that have to do with television, murphy?
NaN> yeup. dead right seamus is real, seamus mcrae that is. another person
NaN> whose real life existence you took and trashed on the ooznetz. i
NaN> read it in the old news.
What do your unsubstantiated claims about Greg Hanson have to do with
television, murphy?
NaN> what has "greg hanson" ever done to you, paul?
Who is "paul", murphy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that alias.
NaN> __________________________________________________________
What does that have to do with television, murphy?
NaN> Hydra-Blanket - Usenet Agent Provocateur
NaN> [Systems Coordinator of that Murphy Cabal]
What do your increasingly-elaborate delusions have to do with television,
murphy?
NaN> Visit the Page we Occupy -
What do your URLs have to do with television, murphy?
NaN> And be sure to sign up and become a member of that
NaN> Murph...@aioe.news.helpdesk
What does your bogus email address have to do with television, murphy?
There is not currently a top-level domain ".helpdesk", murphy. Still
suffering from Internet how-to cluelessness, murphy?
NaN> Need to book est...@aioe.org
NaN> Call the office use...@aioe.org
What does your attempt to cause your own NSP's administrator to get
spammed with off-topic kooky foamage have to do with television, murphy?
You're rapidly running out of NSPs that will tolerate you, murphy, so
your continual badmouthing of AIOE's administrator, and now this attempt
to flood his inbox, are exceptionally unwise.
I don't see anything in your post with any apparent relationship to
television, murphy.
"violating one basic rule in continually posting to or creating "off
topic" messages is a violation of group's charters."
--murphy
How ironic.
"I had 'volunteered (years back) to support those who do endeavor
to provide free Free Usenet access, support those who offered
subscription based Free Usenet access, nothing more than
cooperation expected in return for what has been many
thousands of hours of work. I note most of those I joined with
are either deceased, severely disabled, or plain ole' MIA..
now it is my Time. ...
You just read my last. ...
For those who think they see me in future times I can only wish
you severe Tinnitus in your dreams. For those who know me
well (eMail, whatever) and see me, know I will be smiling also.
It is to you I say "adieu mein frenz and adios .. grazie' [hugs]
for all the Good Times! May you and yours always bear well
with all Life brings you".
/0ut"
--murphy
http://www.uffnet.com/kookkamp/goodbye.htm
And some people wonder why I call them Famous Last Words.
JRStern
Oct 8, 2012, 2:53:33 PM10/8/12
to
On 8 Oct 2012 04:28:03 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
I think he just stared in two, as did Robert Vaughn, I think I recall
offhand, but McGoohan also directed one or more others, IIRC.
J.
>
>-- wds
Starr) wrote:
>In article <anim8rfsk-EDDB0...@news.easynews.com>,
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> Did I ever tell you about my idea for the ultimate episode of
>>> "Columbo"? It's about a Strategic Air Command general (Patrick
>>> McGoohan) who murders his mistress and then starts WWIII to cover
>>> it up. The title would be "Doctor Strangelove, I Presume?"
>>
>> Will there be a Red Rover?
>
>Snork. (For the sake of anybody who didn't get the joke, or didn't
>even know there was a joke, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think
>that McGoohan was at least in a tie for "Most times playing a killer
>on 'Columbo'.")
"Just one more thing", right? :)
>In article <anim8rfsk-EDDB0...@news.easynews.com>,
>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> Did I ever tell you about my idea for the ultimate episode of
>>> "Columbo"? It's about a Strategic Air Command general (Patrick
>>> McGoohan) who murders his mistress and then starts WWIII to cover
>>> it up. The title would be "Doctor Strangelove, I Presume?"
>>
>> Will there be a Red Rover?
>
>Snork. (For the sake of anybody who didn't get the joke, or didn't
>even know there was a joke, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think
>that McGoohan was at least in a tie for "Most times playing a killer
>on 'Columbo'.")
I think he just stared in two, as did Robert Vaughn, I think I recall
offhand, but McGoohan also directed one or more others, IIRC.
J.
>
>-- wds
anim8rFSK
Oct 8, 2012, 4:07:08 PM10/8/12
to
In article <u58678dpn8kbn0npo...@4ax.com>,
Appeared in 4, produced 2, directed 5 (with a lot of overlap of course)
Without looking I'd guess Robert Culp was in second place ... ah, here
we go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo#Guest_stars
Without looking I'd guess Robert Culp was in second place ... ah, here
we go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo#Guest_stars
Steve Bartman
Oct 8, 2012, 4:53:06 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:07:31 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>Nope. He is now the Secretary of Defense...so, promoted by the President.
I have not watched Ep 2 since I'm trying to get my wife to watch the
pilot. May not work.
Did the new SecDef get confirmed by the Senate?
Steve
>Nope. He is now the Secretary of Defense...so, promoted by the President.
I have not watched Ep 2 since I'm trying to get my wife to watch the
pilot. May not work.
Did the new SecDef get confirmed by the Senate?
Steve
Obveeus
Oct 8, 2012, 5:57:12 PM10/8/12
to
Adam H. Kerman
Oct 8, 2012, 5:59:31 PM10/8/12
to
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
seamus frogs or forges previous Usenet posters. The seamus act is
unmistakeable. You were engaging in it. That's all that's required to
establish identity.
David Loewe, Jr.
Oct 8, 2012, 6:23:13 PM10/8/12
to
>So what? seamus frogs or forges previous Usenet posters. The seamus
>act is unmistakeable. You were engaging in it.
shit? That is pretty standard on Usenet. I'm not acting any
differently than I have in the past - you've even encountered me doing
it to you before.
>That's all that's required to establish identity.
I've been using dual identities on Usenet since 2007. I've been doing
it in here for years. For you to all of a sudden decide that makes me
some known troll is rather silly.
--
"Choose your friends wisely."
Dr. Jerry Pournelle
David V. Loewe, Jr
Oct 8, 2012, 6:24:43 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:57:12, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:07:31, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Nope. He is now the Secretary of Defense...so, promoted by the President.
>>
>> I have not watched Ep 2 since I'm trying to get my wife to watch the
>> pilot. May not work.
>>
>> Did the new SecDef get confirmed by the Senate?
>
>The show offered up no explanation at all for the promotion.
Given the stated time frame, probably "Acting SecDef."
>>
>>>Nope. He is now the Secretary of Defense...so, promoted by the President.
>>
>> I have not watched Ep 2 since I'm trying to get my wife to watch the
>> pilot. May not work.
>>
>> Did the new SecDef get confirmed by the Senate?
>
>The show offered up no explanation at all for the promotion.
--
"You're free to be as much of an asshole as you wish -- as long as I'm
not paying for it."
- Todd Masco
JRStern
Oct 8, 2012, 6:42:51 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:07:08 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>> >Snork. (For the sake of anybody who didn't get the joke, or didn't
>> >even know there was a joke, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think
>> >that McGoohan was at least in a tie for "Most times playing a killer
>> >on 'Columbo'.")
>>
>> "Just one more thing", right? :)
>>
>> I think he just stared in two, as did Robert Vaughn, I think I recall
>> offhand, but McGoohan also directed one or more others, IIRC.
>
>Appeared in 4, produced 2, directed 5 (with a lot of overlap of course)
>
>Without looking I'd guess Robert Culp was in second place ... ah, here
>we go:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo#Guest_stars
Is that four, in the original series? I don't really count the later
ones, and have a vague recollection he did some of those.
J.
wrote:
>> >Snork. (For the sake of anybody who didn't get the joke, or didn't
>> >even know there was a joke, I'm too lazy to look it up but I think
>> >that McGoohan was at least in a tie for "Most times playing a killer
>> >on 'Columbo'.")
>>
>> "Just one more thing", right? :)
>>
>> I think he just stared in two, as did Robert Vaughn, I think I recall
>> offhand, but McGoohan also directed one or more others, IIRC.
>
>Appeared in 4, produced 2, directed 5 (with a lot of overlap of course)
>
>Without looking I'd guess Robert Culp was in second place ... ah, here
>we go:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo#Guest_stars
ones, and have a vague recollection he did some of those.
J.
anim8rFSK
Oct 8, 2012, 7:25:14 PM10/8/12
to
In article <k4vic2$j0o$3...@news.albasani.net>,
Isn't denying that you're Seamus clear evidence that you ARE Seamus?
anim8rFSK
Oct 8, 2012, 7:29:40 PM10/8/12
to
Steve Bartman
Oct 8, 2012, 7:38:20 PM10/8/12
to
Steve
Steve Bartman
Oct 8, 2012, 7:47:55 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:24:43 -0500, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:57:12, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:07:31, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nope. He is now the Secretary of Defense...so, promoted by the President.
>>>
>>> I have not watched Ep 2 since I'm trying to get my wife to watch the
>>> pilot. May not work.
>>>
>>> Did the new SecDef get confirmed by the Senate?
>>
>>The show offered up no explanation at all for the promotion.
>
>Given the stated time frame, probably "Acting SecDef."
From my reading of Title 10 there can't be an acting SecDef. Must be
<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:57:12, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:07:31, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nope. He is now the Secretary of Defense...so, promoted by the President.
>>>
>>> I have not watched Ep 2 since I'm trying to get my wife to watch the
>>> pilot. May not work.
>>>
>>> Did the new SecDef get confirmed by the Senate?
>>
>>The show offered up no explanation at all for the promotion.
>
>Given the stated time frame, probably "Acting SecDef."
confirmed by the Senate. No weasel words in there. Given the power of
the office under Goldwater-Nichols-he's second in command in the
operational chain, you don't want the president handing this out
without a check and balance.
Steve
JRStern
Oct 8, 2012, 7:49:40 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:29:40 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>> Is that four, in the original series? I don't really count the later
>> ones, and have a vague recollection he did some of those.
>>
>> J.
>
>1974
>1975
>1990
>1998
Yeah, I vaguely recall one of the later ones where (again) he played a
rich industrialist, and the other, um, something with a beard?
In the original of course in the first he was a military school
commander, and in the second he killed Leslie Nielsen under the Santa
Monica pier.
J.
wrote:
>> Is that four, in the original series? I don't really count the later
>> ones, and have a vague recollection he did some of those.
>>
>> J.
>
>1974
>1975
>1990
>1998
rich industrialist, and the other, um, something with a beard?
In the original of course in the first he was a military school
commander, and in the second he killed Leslie Nielsen under the Santa
Monica pier.
J.
David Loewe, Jr.
Oct 8, 2012, 8:15:22 PM10/8/12
to
--
"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."
- William J. Clinton on Barack Obama
David Loewe, Jr.
Oct 8, 2012, 10:51:52 PM10/8/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:47:55, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:24:43, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Defense#Secretary_of_Defense_succession>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft_IV>
"Taft was then appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense and served from
January 1984 to April 1989. He served as acting Secretary of Defense
from January to March 1989 after George H. W. Bush became president.
Bush's initial nominee, John Tower, was not confirmed by the United
States Senate after much contentious debate and testimony. The eventual
appointee confirmed in March was Richard B. Cheney (later Vice President
of the United States, 2001–2009). Although he was only acting Secretary
of Defense, and never confirmed as the permanent Secretary, he became
the third member of his family to hold a position as civilian head of a
military department, following his great-great-grandfather Alphonso Taft
(under President Ulysses S. Grant) and his great-grandfather William
Howard Taft (under President Theodore Roosevelt)."
--
"It? Come now. I am a female hominid, if not exactly the same species
as you. Surely I rate a she, at least."
- Gwendolyn Ingolfsson to Kenneth Lafarge in Drakon
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:24:43, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft_IV>
"Taft was then appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense and served from
January 1984 to April 1989. He served as acting Secretary of Defense
from January to March 1989 after George H. W. Bush became president.
Bush's initial nominee, John Tower, was not confirmed by the United
States Senate after much contentious debate and testimony. The eventual
appointee confirmed in March was Richard B. Cheney (later Vice President
of the United States, 2001–2009). Although he was only acting Secretary
of Defense, and never confirmed as the permanent Secretary, he became
the third member of his family to hold a position as civilian head of a
military department, following his great-great-grandfather Alphonso Taft
(under President Ulysses S. Grant) and his great-grandfather William
Howard Taft (under President Theodore Roosevelt)."
--
"It? Come now. I am a female hominid, if not exactly the same species
as you. Surely I rate a she, at least."
- Gwendolyn Ingolfsson to Kenneth Lafarge in Drakon
piptoporus
Oct 9, 2012, 11:28:54 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:59:31 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
41118> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
41118> I've seen the Lowe/Loewe names in use for years on Usenet, too.
What does what you've seen have to do with television, Kerman?
41118> So what?
What does your question of Loewe have to do with television, Kerman?
41118> seamus frogs or forges previous Usenet posters.
Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
41118> The seamus act is unmistakeable.
Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
41118> You were engaging in it.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Kerman?
41118> That's all that's required to establish identity.
What do your paranoia and your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous
claim have to do with television, Kerman?
41118> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
41118> I've seen the Lowe/Loewe names in use for years on Usenet, too.
What does what you've seen have to do with television, Kerman?
41118> So what?
What does your question of Loewe have to do with television, Kerman?
41118> seamus frogs or forges previous Usenet posters.
Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
41118> The seamus act is unmistakeable.
Who is "seamus", Kerman? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
41118> You were engaging in it.
What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do
with television, Kerman?
41118> That's all that's required to establish identity.
What do your paranoia and your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous
claim have to do with television, Kerman?
piptoporus
Oct 9, 2012, 11:32:09 AM10/9/12
to
3> I've never used "Lowe."
What do your past aliases have to do with television, Loewe?
3> If you have seen that, it is someone else.
What does your classic pontification have to do with television, Loewe?
3> Engaging in what, exactly?
What does your question of Kerman have to do with television, Loewe?
3> Telling other posters that they're full of shit?
What does your foul language have to do with television, Loewe?
3> That is pretty standard on Usenet.
What does your classic pontification have to do with television, Loewe?
3> I'm not acting any differently than I have in the past - you've even
3> encountered me doing it to you before.
Kerman is a paranoid nut, Loewe.
3> The seamus act also, IIRC, asks who seamus is.
Who is "seamus", Loewe? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
3> I've been using dual identities on Usenet since 2007. I've been doing
3> it in here for years. For you to all of a sudden decide that makes me
3> some known troll is rather silly.
What does Kerman's silliness have to do with television, Loewe?
What do your past aliases have to do with television, Loewe?
3> If you have seen that, it is someone else.
What does your classic pontification have to do with television, Loewe?
3> Engaging in what, exactly?
What does your question of Kerman have to do with television, Loewe?
3> Telling other posters that they're full of shit?
What does your foul language have to do with television, Loewe?
3> That is pretty standard on Usenet.
What does your classic pontification have to do with television, Loewe?
3> I'm not acting any differently than I have in the past - you've even
3> encountered me doing it to you before.
Kerman is a paranoid nut, Loewe.
3> The seamus act also, IIRC, asks who seamus is.
Who is "seamus", Loewe? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
3> I've been using dual identities on Usenet since 2007. I've been doing
3> it in here for years. For you to all of a sudden decide that makes me
3> some known troll is rather silly.
What does Kerman's silliness have to do with television, Loewe?
piptoporus
Oct 9, 2012, 11:35:25 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:25:14 -0700, anim8rFSK wrote:
314> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
314> Isn't denying that you're Seamus clear evidence that you ARE Seamus?
Classic illogic, since if this "Seamus" always denies that he's "Seamus",
and given that non-"Seamus" people will also deny that they're "Seamus",
then someone denying that they're "Seamus" gives you no information
either way about whether or not they are actually "Seamus".
And who is "Seamus", anim8rFSK? There is nobody in this newsgroup using
that alias.
314> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
314> Isn't denying that you're Seamus clear evidence that you ARE Seamus?
Classic illogic, since if this "Seamus" always denies that he's "Seamus",
and given that non-"Seamus" people will also deny that they're "Seamus",
then someone denying that they're "Seamus" gives you no information
either way about whether or not they are actually "Seamus".
And who is "Seamus", anim8rFSK? There is nobody in this newsgroup using
that alias.
piptoporus
Oct 9, 2012, 11:36:33 AM10/9/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:15:22 -0500, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
4> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
4> You are seamus!
Who is "seamus", Loewe? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
4> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
4> You are seamus!
Who is "seamus", Loewe? There is nobody in this newsgroup using that
alias.
Grump
Oct 10, 2012, 3:43:08 PM10/10/12
to
computer newsgroup??
Message has been deleted
Nadegda
Oct 10, 2012, 9:26:13 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:25:17 -0400, Hydro_Blanky (Pie Gurl)
P...@yahoo.calm WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
> Grump seamus (derbyshire) twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012
> posted as news in <k54j4c$cfg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
awards-august-2012.html
Looks like you're going to kook out at every single newbie to post to
rec.arts.tv this fall, no matter what server, user-agent, or whatever.
You seriously need help, Hydro_Kooky.
P...@yahoo.calm WINNER - KOTM July 2012 wrote:
> Grump seamus (derbyshire) twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012
> posted as news in <k54j4c$cfg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
> and as - "PAUL G. "TWO-SOCKS" DERBYSHIRE!"
> http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/09/winners-usenet-kook-
awards-august-2012.html
Looks like you're going to kook out at every single newbie to post to
rec.arts.tv this fall, no matter what server, user-agent, or whatever.
You seriously need help, Hydro_Kooky.
Fred Hall
Oct 10, 2012, 9:32:29 PM10/10/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:26:13 +0000 (UTC), Nadegda
<nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>kook out
>Ever think that, since no real human being without COMIC-BOOK SUPERPOWERS
>could *really* be online and posting 21/7 and getting by on only three
>hours of sleep a day, that the "multipuppet display" in question is really
>a multiPERSON display and that YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING?
Really, Paul?
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ&feature=youtu.be
# 1 - "I'M NOT DERBYSHIRE!!!1!!
# 2 - "I AM [Sock A] NOT [Sock B]!!2!!
# 3 - "Proof?"
# 4 - "YOU'RE CHASING A GHOST!!4!!"
# 5 - "YOU'RE DRINKING THE MORPHY KOOL-AID!!5!!"
# 6 - "We've spanked you again - VICTOLLY IS OURS!!!6!!"
# 7 - "I'M WINNING, FOR FUCK' SAKE!!7!!" (from MID <jutal1$4u1$1@dont- email.me>)
# 8 - Point to the [Tard] Peg Boi's Palmjobs and call them 'evidence' or 'spanks'.
# 9 - Display mental retardation and insanity by regurgitating a Tholenism.
#10 - When spanked six ways to Sunday, reply to each sockpuppet diddling insane
screed and call it 'Our So0pa Sekkkret Unkrackable Kode'.
#11 - When spanked, make a faux award nomination and second it by Holey Sock.
#12 - PeeWee - vermin's big misadventure.
#13 - Swim deeply in denial.
#14 - MELT! You fat retarded chimp!
<nad31...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>kook out
>Ever think that, since no real human being without COMIC-BOOK SUPERPOWERS
>could *really* be online and posting 21/7 and getting by on only three
>hours of sleep a day, that the "multipuppet display" in question is really
>a multiPERSON display and that YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING?
Really, Paul?
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ&feature=youtu.be
# 1 - "I'M NOT DERBYSHIRE!!!1!!
# 2 - "I AM [Sock A] NOT [Sock B]!!2!!
# 3 - "Proof?"
# 4 - "YOU'RE CHASING A GHOST!!4!!"
# 5 - "YOU'RE DRINKING THE MORPHY KOOL-AID!!5!!"
# 6 - "We've spanked you again - VICTOLLY IS OURS!!!6!!"
# 7 - "I'M WINNING, FOR FUCK' SAKE!!7!!" (from MID <jutal1$4u1$1@dont- email.me>)
# 8 - Point to the [Tard] Peg Boi's Palmjobs and call them 'evidence' or 'spanks'.
# 9 - Display mental retardation and insanity by regurgitating a Tholenism.
#10 - When spanked six ways to Sunday, reply to each sockpuppet diddling insane
screed and call it 'Our So0pa Sekkkret Unkrackable Kode'.
#11 - When spanked, make a faux award nomination and second it by Holey Sock.
#12 - PeeWee - vermin's big misadventure.
#13 - Swim deeply in denial.
#14 - MELT! You fat retarded chimp!
Message has been deleted
Tracey12
Oct 11, 2012, 2:17:15 PM10/11/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:19:12 -0400, Hydro_Blanky wrote:
> Nadegda seamus (derbyshire) twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012
> posted as news in <k5577k$b5c$4...@dont-email.me>
>> you're going to kook out <----------asshole presumption detected
>> at every single newbie <-------------klooless assumption detected
> your shit is seasonal paula?...there is _some_ good news, in
> that there is clear days ahead this coming winter.
>
> [flashbulb]
> Question, kook...how are you funding the fuel bill for a
> 21/7 keyboard operation during what is predicted as a hard
> winter for Ontario, paula?
> you post it you own it. no free rides, kook.
> shit exposed.
> who needs help ...?..agin?
> what _is_ your problem...?...you are winning for fucks sake...?...
> are you not!
>
> [snickers]
>
> HtH
index.html [http://preview.tinyurl.com/celtbta]
> Need to book est...@aioe.org
> Call the office use...@aioe.org
I'm temporarily unlurking in this newsfroup to ask you this:
What seems to be your boggle?
I've seen a number of the strange things you write in rec.arts.tv lately,
and from them I've concluded that you, sir, are seriously disturbed.
You might also have noticed that almost everyone in rec.arts.tv is
ignoring you and the one who isn't is as strange as you are.
I have three suggestions for you.
One, find another newsgroup to play around in. One where your weird brand
of ... weirdness might be appreciated. There are a number of newsgroups
with ".kooks" in the name, at least on my server, so try one of those.
Two, calling someone else "kook" is a form of throwing stones. /You/
calling someone else "kook" is a form of throwing stones in glass houses.
Just don't.
And three, /GET HELP/!!
BTW, I've taken the liberty of _ignoring_ your rudely unannounced
Followup-To setting. If you want that respected, disclose it in the body
of your posts. Also, your sig is too long and the separator is in
completely the wrong place in your post. Another reason people are
ignoring you is that your posts probably look blank, with a single
unfoldable line for the signature, to many people.
I suggest you not only get your head examined but learn a thing or two
about netiquette before posting again. Also, the correct spelling,
punctuation, and grammar of the English language. Nobody's going to take
your rantings and ravings seriously if they look like they were written
by a four-year-old, fumbling on his mommy's iPhone that he swiped, during
lunch recess.
HTH.
P.S. *PLONK*
> Nadegda seamus (derbyshire) twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012
> posted as news in <k5577k$b5c$4...@dont-email.me>
> and as - "PAUL G. "TWO-SOCKS" DERBYSHIRE!"
> http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/09/winners-usenet-kook-
awards-august-2012.html
> --
> http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/09/winners-usenet-kook-
awards-august-2012.html
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:25:17 -0400, Hydro_Blanky wrote:
>>
>>> Grump seamus (derbyshire) twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012
>>> posted as news in <k54j4c$cfg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
>>> and as - "PAUL G. "TWO-SOCKS" DERBYSHIRE!"
>>> http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/09/winners-usenet-kook-
>> awards-august-2012.html
>>
>> Looks like <-------------escape hatch detected
>>
>>> Grump seamus (derbyshire) twist...@gmail.com WINNER - KOTM July 2012
>>> posted as news in <k54j4c$cfg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
>>> and as - "PAUL G. "TWO-SOCKS" DERBYSHIRE!"
>>> http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/2012/09/winners-usenet-kook-
>> awards-august-2012.html
>>
>> you're going to kook out <----------asshole presumption detected
>> at every single newbie <-------------klooless assumption detected
> your shit is seasonal paula?...there is _some_ good news, in
> that there is clear days ahead this coming winter.
>
> [flashbulb]
> Question, kook...how are you funding the fuel bill for a
> 21/7 keyboard operation during what is predicted as a hard
> winter for Ontario, paula?
>
>> no matter what server, user-agent, or whatever.
>>
> only _you_ control what you post.
>> no matter what server, user-agent, or whatever.
>>
> you post it you own it. no free rides, kook.
>
>> You seriously need help, Hydro_Kooky.
>>
> yet you are the dude crying at your keyboard in finding your
>> You seriously need help, Hydro_Kooky.
>>
> shit exposed.
> who needs help ...?..agin?
> what _is_ your problem...?...you are winning for fucks sake...?...
> are you not!
>
> [snickers]
>
> HtH
>
> Hydra-Blanket - Usenet Agent Provocateur
> Hydra-Blanket - Usenet Agent Provocateur
> [Systems Coordinator of that Murphy Cabal]
> Visit the Page we Occupy - http://66.39.71.195/Derbyshlre/
index.html [http://preview.tinyurl.com/celtbta]
> And be sure to sign up and become a member of that
Murph...@aioe.news.helpdesk
> Need to book est...@aioe.org
> Call the office use...@aioe.org
I'm temporarily unlurking in this newsfroup to ask you this:
What seems to be your boggle?
I've seen a number of the strange things you write in rec.arts.tv lately,
and from them I've concluded that you, sir, are seriously disturbed.
You might also have noticed that almost everyone in rec.arts.tv is
ignoring you and the one who isn't is as strange as you are.
I have three suggestions for you.
One, find another newsgroup to play around in. One where your weird brand
of ... weirdness might be appreciated. There are a number of newsgroups
with ".kooks" in the name, at least on my server, so try one of those.
Two, calling someone else "kook" is a form of throwing stones. /You/
calling someone else "kook" is a form of throwing stones in glass houses.
Just don't.
And three, /GET HELP/!!
BTW, I've taken the liberty of _ignoring_ your rudely unannounced
Followup-To setting. If you want that respected, disclose it in the body
of your posts. Also, your sig is too long and the separator is in
completely the wrong place in your post. Another reason people are
ignoring you is that your posts probably look blank, with a single
unfoldable line for the signature, to many people.
I suggest you not only get your head examined but learn a thing or two
about netiquette before posting again. Also, the correct spelling,
punctuation, and grammar of the English language. Nobody's going to take
your rantings and ravings seriously if they look like they were written
by a four-year-old, fumbling on his mommy's iPhone that he swiped, during
lunch recess.
HTH.
P.S. *PLONK*
cloud dreamer
Oct 11, 2012, 3:01:00 PM10/11/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:43:08 +0000, Grump wrote:
1> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
1> Gee, what's *your* malfunction?
What does your classic erroneous presupposition of a question have to do
with television, Grump?
1> And what's with setting followups to some computer newsgroup??
What does your question have to do with television, Grump?
1> Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
1> Gee, what's *your* malfunction?
What does your classic erroneous presupposition of a question have to do
with television, Grump?
1> And what's with setting followups to some computer newsgroup??
What does your question have to do with television, Grump?
cloud dreamer
Oct 11, 2012, 3:04:48 PM10/11/12
to
..
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages