ROGER RAMJET
Roger L. Perkins
Hey, I'm willing to back this up. Didn't I ask you out for a beer to discuss
things? But noooo... I guess facing those you lie about isn't your style. Such
a coward. As usual you have your cap key stuck and couldn't write truth if you
had to. You are such a pitiful little man. What a pathetic excuse for a human
being. No wonder you have no friends on the net. Everyone see's you for what
you are. Hey! Tell us again how you got shot down and had to E&E (thats escape
and evade. I know how nomenclature confuses you) out of NVN! I love that one.
Hey! I got an idea! Lets post this over to alt.cadet so they can see how you
talk outside the bb! Yeah! Your terms for woman and your complete disrespect
for the gender will be a good education for how not to do it.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
pa...@aol.com wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> In article <359A7E94...@cc.usu.edu>,
> "Roger L. Perkins" <bad...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hey! Some of those girls are tough! Look what they did to little
> > Kenny! Scared him real bad.
>
> Nope that was the sound of your OWN urine running down your legs Roger. Not
> mine. Say, you never took me up on your offer to come up with your Amazon
> Lesbian PMS Legion and for me to gather an equal number of men and let's see
> who is the bullshitter Roger. Let's put them into some competition including
> had to hand stuff. Have to have it legal so when the guys HURT the women you
> don't whine like a sissy! Roger you have a big mouth and nothing to back it
> up. ALL the evidence from the Gulf war doesn't paint quite the puicture of
> the AMAZON HORDES wiping the floor with the wimpy mens YOU try to paint.
>
> You never seem to answer the questions put to you, such as WHY the women
> who were put into Navy fighter squadrons had ALL "failed" their flight
> training or why although the Air Force has tested something like 48,000 women
> in the centrifuge similators NO woman has ever passed the combat simulations.
> But YOU, Roger Ramjet CLAIM (with No factual support that is dsicernable)
> that in your VAST, VAST, VASTGm, combat experience women are BETTER than
> men! I would just LOVE to see something OTHER than your flapping Jaws on
> that Roger! You do love to bang the keyboard with your BS.
>
> ALL of us have seen women in the military we admire Roger. YOU on the other
> hand, along with delusional Feminazis want to put women into areas they have
> little chance of surviving. And EVEN THE, I say that *I* don't have a problem
> with allowing women to take a shot at the jobs just so long as we use
> realistic standards and not the "GENDER NORMING" bullshit you are so fond of.
> You do NOT "gender NORM" a war!
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Patrick Pemberton
pa...@aol.com sez:
> And Nope, Roge, I was never really BIG on military nomenclature.
There's a shocker.
> You can
> trip me up on that all day long. When I left the Air Force it was a
> friendly
> divorce. Not only did we each promise not to write, but not to think
> about
> each other. So I left that crap over 30 years ago. EXCUSE ME!
Then that makes you a qualified expert on the cutting edge of military
excellence? How is it that your only posts to a friggin CADET newsgroup are
to try to piss on Roger?
> (And Roger, the AF does NOT always use the same terms you
> gravel aggitators
> do.)
No, it's the same terms. To translate from AF to other you have to remove
the listhp! <ducking...>
akira
Since I realy don't know the history But I like to put my two bucks on the
table and chime in so here go's. The one magor disadvantige women have is
they by standered aren't Built as large or hevy as men. How ever if you have
ever gone hand to hand with a female martial artist (I mean full contact)
You know sex does not play a part. Problem is What guy honestly whant's to
date a woman that MAke's arnold shwarteznager Look like a wimp.
P.S. Never Get on the wrong end of a woman when she knows how to use a 9mm
or 357mag. Most women HAve more sensitve hearing and better sight.
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <359B91D2...@sisna.com>...
pa...@aol.com
In article <6njqmf$8io$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
"Patrick Pemberton" <patr...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> pa...@aol.com sez:
>
> > And Nope, Roge, I was never really BIG on military nomenclature.
>
> There's a shocker.
>
> > You can
> > trip me up on that all day long. When I left the Air Force it was a
> > friendly
> > divorce. Not only did we each promise not to write, but not to think
> > about
> > each other. So I left that crap over 30 years ago. EXCUSE ME!
>
> Then that makes you a qualified expert on the cutting edge of military
> excellence? How is it that your only posts to a friggin CADET newsgroup are
> to try to piss on Roger?
Because Roger CHOSE to crosspost it there. I have *NO* interest in your
little forum. If you want to bitch about the topic being there, send it to
the SOURCE.
pa...@aol.com
In article <6njvjj$pl3$1...@news.flinet.com>,
"akira" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Since I realy don't know the history But I like to put my two bucks on the
> table and chime in so here go's. The one magor disadvantige women have is
> they by standered aren't Built as large or hevy as men. How ever if you have
> ever gone hand to hand with a female martial artist (I mean full contact)
> You know sex does not play a part. Problem is What guy honestly whant's to
> date a woman that MAke's arnold shwarteznager Look like a wimp.
> P.S. Never Get on the wrong end of a woman when she knows how to use a 9mm
> or 357mag. Most women HAve more sensitve hearing and better sight.
First if you actually read what *I* posted, I said I have NO problem with
women in ANY position they qualify for. I have SERIOUS problems with LOWERING
standards so that women can get into positions they do not qualify for, and I
think it diminishes the capabilities of women who DO qualify. Now, THAT being
said for the humpty jillionth time, let me answer some of the implied
specifics of your answer.
If *ALL* meaning the ENTIRETY of combat was being able to aim and discharge
a .357 magnum, then ALL women should be drafted at age 18! And mere
competence at Kung Fu would hardly be a criteria either. There are many other
issues in combat, ***ONE*** of which is being able to actually get to where
the combat is going to occur. Now until we can "BEAM" (as in Scotty) troops
to the combat areas, such as a mountain, then physical ability IS going to be
a factor no matter how OBNOXIOUS and SARCASTIC you try to make the issue.
Being able to PULL yourself up a rope several hundred feet **IS** going to be
a factor. And perhaps also PULL up a wounded buddy.
You mat RIGHTLY ask how many MEN in the modern Army can do that. The answer
is MANY fewer since the standards have gone DOWN, DOWN, DOWN to accomodate
women and less athgletic males.
I think of World War 2 and Patton's army moving ON FOOT nearly 150 miles in
just a few days to Bastogne. And how NICE it would be to have an abundance of
helicopters and BIG, BIG trucks to do that today. Which is the standard
retort from those NOT real familiar with combat. That trek was NOT a Sunday
drive for Pattton's army. They had to fight their way to relieve Bastogne.
The HAD to walk.
In ALL of America's history we have had IDIOTS who thought they knew it all
and gave the military fits, even some inside the military. We can look at the
hell Billy Mitchell had trying to sell aviation. We had IDIOTS who resisted
John Paul Jones and an American Navy even FOLLOWING the revolution. And we
had IDIOTS who claimed following Korea that the "dogfight" was NEVER, EVE
going to happen again. Till we started losing planes in Viet Nam. By the way
those SAME IDIOTS are with us again, saying that NONE of today's fighter
aircraft should have guns! We have others saying we do not need ANY bombers!
Yet others saying we need NO submarines and aircraft carriers! And we have
feminists on PBS claiming that when women cannot perform a function in air
combat, that the military can "just put a little THINGIE" on the planes to
compensate!
It is simple. Combat requires the BEST we have physically. NOT some
bureaucrat's notion of GENDER NORMING! And frankly the whole issue I think
tarnishes the women's abilities that I had served with! Of course if you want
a patronizing paternalistic society, be my guest. I still opine that *I*
think it is rediculous!
Roger L. Perkins
Just as clarification (I know lil' Ken won't listen, but the adults will) I only
respond to posts on alt.military.cadet and soc.veterans. Once or twice I did some
posting on soemthing.mens but that was only once or twice a year or so ago. You
don't like it coming to another group, change your addresses.
Oh yeah, Ken. I guess you aren't up to that beer after all, huh? "Butch" being a
term I guess you use alot I'll have to reevaluate whether I want to meet you as
well. That does explain your hatred for women you claim to "respect". Funny form
of respect where you call them derogatory, insulting names and such. But I guess
that's ez for you since you never actually face them.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
pa...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <6njqmf$8io$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> "Patrick Pemberton" <patr...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > pa...@aol.com sez:
> >
> > > And Nope, Roge, I was never really BIG on military nomenclature.
> >
> > There's a shocker.
> >
> > > You can
> > > trip me up on that all day long. When I left the Air Force it was a
> > > friendly
> > > divorce. Not only did we each promise not to write, but not to think
> > > about
> > > each other. So I left that crap over 30 years ago. EXCUSE ME!
> >
> > Then that makes you a qualified expert on the cutting edge of military
> > excellence? How is it that your only posts to a friggin CADET newsgroup are
> > to try to piss on Roger?
>
> Because Roger CHOSE to crosspost it there. I have *NO* interest in your
> little forum. If you want to bitch about the topic being there, send it to
> the SOURCE.
>
Roger L. Perkins
Just to bring you up-to-date on this one, Ken feels that women are subhuman
("bitches", "menstral brigades", and so on are some of his better terms) and
shouldn't be in the military period. The fact that they have been in the
military for years and done fine seems to have slipped his notice there in the
home.
On the other hand, I think there is a place for them though not everywhere.
Reason needs to be used and not absolute condemnation based solely on personal
feelings - or failures, as the case is with Ken.
In other words - a bigotted approach verses a balanced approace. Check it out
in Deja News. Some of Kens old stuff is there up until he learned how to not
get it posted so he wouldn't have to answer for his misdeeds. Me? I never
cared that much so you can read my stuff all you want.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
akira wrote:
> Since I realy don't know the history But I like to put my two bucks on the
> table and chime in so here go's. The one magor disadvantige women have is
> they by standered aren't Built as large or hevy as men. How ever if you have
> ever gone hand to hand with a female martial artist (I mean full contact)
> You know sex does not play a part. Problem is What guy honestly whant's to
> date a woman that MAke's arnold shwarteznager Look like a wimp.
> P.S. Never Get on the wrong end of a woman when she knows how to use a 9mm
> or 357mag. Most women HAve more sensitve hearing and better sight.
Roger L. Perkins
Must be back on meds because your story has changed - again.
And you cap key is stuck - again.
Ken, you have been such a bitter and vitrolic poster against women what makes you
think anyone is listening now that you have changed your STORY. Opps... stuck.
Besides, you have not or very little experience to back your position up.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
pa...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <6njvjj$pl3$1...@news.flinet.com>,
> "akira" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Since I realy don't know the history But I like to put my two bucks on the
> > table and chime in so here go's. The one magor disadvantige women have is
> > they by standered aren't Built as large or hevy as men. How ever if you have
> > ever gone hand to hand with a female martial artist (I mean full contact)
> > You know sex does not play a part. Problem is What guy honestly whant's to
> > date a woman that MAke's arnold shwarteznager Look like a wimp.
> > P.S. Never Get on the wrong end of a woman when she knows how to use a 9mm
> > or 357mag. Most women HAve more sensitve hearing and better sight.
>
akira
I just whant to know How his Boy friend feal's about all this!
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <359FEC4B...@sisna.com>...
Roger L. Perkins
correct story about my experience with the IDF yet you refuse to admit that you are
making up your claims. Other people have also pointed this out to you. I have also
stated several times the just because women and men are different does not make one
or the other "superior"... just different. I have shared my experience with women
in the Army only to have you lock your cap key and start demening the entire gender.
As if you have any experience to speak of. I have 21 years working with soldiers of
both genders, several races, and God knows what other differences and I have been
successful at it. Now I teach the same group of kids at university. And you know
what? I'm still good at it. What have you contributed lately except negative
sterotypes, profane characterizations, and general bullshit? Not much is my guess.
Now you back-peddle to beat the band and claim you even support women in any role
including combat. Well, make up your mind. At least I don't go from one extreme to
another.
You, my whining friend, are just another punk with no experience who does not want
to face his own words. I noticed you have deleated all your anti-female posts from
DejaNews. Afraid of facing what you have said? At least I don't go behind my posts
and try to clean them up. If I say something stupid I at least have the courage to
admit it. You only post hatred and lies. Hell, you even said I posted from Virginia
when I haven't been on a computer outside Utah in my life (on the net, that is).
Extreamist position my ass.
You are just a pitiful excuse for a man and you know it. Won't even meet me for a
beer.
And take note. This one I will post to soc.mens so you know it is directly from me
and not a cross post. Also so they can see what a little worm you really are.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
pa...@aol.com wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> In article <359FEC4B...@sisna.com>,
> "Roger L. Perkins" <pe...@sisna.com> wrote:
>
> > Just to bring you up-to-date on this one, Ken feels that women are subhuman
> > ("bitches", "menstral brigades", and so on are some of his better terms) and
> > shouldn't be in the military period. The fact that they have been in the
> > military for years and done fine seems to have slipped his notice there in the
> > home.
>
> NO! That is NOT at all how I feel about women in the military. It is how I
> feel about how **YOU** characterize women at times in a very extremist way. I
> have more than 3 dozen times stated wuote clearly that I fully support women
> in ANY role, INCLUDING COMBAT, **IF** they can meet the same standards men
> HAD to, not LOWERED standards based on "GENDER NORMING." I am FULLY in
> agreement that women have performed OUTSTANDING service. I just think YOUR
> plans as you stated them in the past were idiotic!
pa...@aol.com
In article <359FED0F...@sisna.com>,
"Roger L. Perkins" <pe...@sisna.com> wrote:
> Must be back on meds because your story has changed - again.
> And you cap key is stuck - again.
> Ken, you have been such a bitter and vitrolic poster against women what makes you think anyone is listening now that you have changed your STORY. Opps... stuck. Besides, you have not or very little experience to back your position up.
Just 4 years active and two active reserve Roger. And my story has NOT
changed. Your has however. We had a head to toe on women meeting men in
drills and you claimed they could MORE than hold their own. From the start I
said **SOME** women certainly could. Not enough to justify the cost of the
programs YOU proposed.
pa...@aol.com
"Roger L. Perkins" <pe...@NOSPAMsisna.com> wrote:
> Well, Ken, now you know how it feels, huh? I have stated many, many time the
correct story about my experience with the IDF yet you refuse to admit that
you are making up your claims. Other people have also pointed this out to
you. I have also stated several times the just because women and men are
different does not make one or the other "superior"... just different. I
have shared my experience with women in the Army only to have you lock your
cap key and start demening the entire gender. As if you have any experience
to speak of. I have 21 years working with soldiers of both genders, several
races, and God knows what other differences and I have been successful at it.
Mr.Perkins, let me make this clear. NOBODY told me you were right. Your
"experience" with the IDF appears to be BULLSHIT because the IDF has
***NEVER*** used women in combat. Which part of the word NEVER is it you
have trouble understanding?????????? NEVER! And the IDF until recently
didn't use women in combat support roles either. As I pointed out, the women
in Israel recently LOST a case before the Israeli Supreme Court, because
unlike OUR chickenshit POLITICALLY CORRECT military, the IDF defended its
position that women were unsuited to combat with hard cold facts and WON!
Does this mean I denigrate women? NOT at all! I don't know how many times I
have agreed that in the MANY jobs women have held, that women have
DISTINGUISHED themselves. Women' competence, or patriotism is NOT an issuem,
what IS an issue is assigning women based NOT on ability but on some
misguided rectal concept of social NORMING. I continue to suggest that the
Department of the Army is NOT the Department of Social Services!
Roger L. Perkins
have all along.
No go play with other children. You have just proven my point.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Paul Jacobsen
>("bitches", "menstral brigades", and so on are some of his better terms)
and
>shouldn't be in the military period. The fact that they have been in the
>military for years and done fine seems to have slipped his notice there in
the
>home.
Then theres what follows:
Originally published by the Washington Times on June 9, 1998
Common Sense and Co-Ed Training
by Elaine Donnelly
Despite a rash of sensational sex scandals at military training bases, some
members of Congress are reluctant to take action. They don’t even want to
answer simple questions, such as, should young women trainees at boot camp
be sleeping side by side with young men? Should male drill instructors have
after-hours access to young women’s private quarters? Are co-ed training and
sleeping facilities more or less conducive to good order and discipline? And
why does it take an act of Congress to mandate common sense?
The reason is "fem fear," an irrational anxiety that grips the hearts of
otherwise-sensible men when they contemplate doing anything that might annoy
a feminist. In recent years, "fem fear" has affected the judgment of
Pentagon officials, both uniformed and civilian. Members of Congress are
also susceptible. How else to explain the actions of Sen. Dirk Kempthorne,
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, who sponsored
an amendment with Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, calling for a "moratorium" on
policies being reviewed by the newly-formed Congressional Commission on
Military Training and Gender-Related Issues.
This a disingenuous delaying tactic. The new commission won’t complete its
work until well into 1999, and Sen. Kempthorne’s subcommittee has yet to
hear testimony on the 1997 report of a similar advisory committee, chaired
by former Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker.
Members of the Kassebaum Baker Commission, who were politically
moderate-to-liberal but largely independent of the current administration,
voted unanimously for an end to co-ed living conditions and basic training
in small, platoon-sized units. (The Marine Corps retains gender separation
in larger units as well as platoons.) The Commission also sent an emphatic
message to Congress: "The present organizational structure in integrated
basic training is resulting in less discipline, less unit cohesion and more
distraction from training programs."
To learn more about why Sen. Kassebaum reached this conclusion, Republican
Rep. Steve Buyer of Indiana, Chairman of the House National Security
Personnel Subcommittee, scheduled a full and balanced hearing on March 17.
With a series of attentive questions, subcommittee members elicited
revealing information that turned the debate around. Army, Navy, Air Force
and Defense
Department officials presented earnest arguments in support of the status
quo, but they struggled to answer questions honestly without violating the
administration’s party line.
During the course of the hearing, Rep. James Talent noted that contemporary
young men and women are already accustomed to working with the opposite sex.
Why is it necessary, therefore, to complicate basic training programs with
the burden of sexual distractions and special sensitivity training? The
ensuing colloquy was so convoluted, Rep. Buyer said it was beginning to
persuade him that the Army should follow the example of the Marine Corps.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland complimented the Army representative for
"doing a good job defending the indefensible."
Democrat Gene Taylor of Mississippi commented on the wide gap between
current testimony and the private pleas of Army officers who dreaded
inevitable problems associated with co-ed basic training. Together with
Reps. Buyer and Bartlett, Taylor later became a co-sponsor of amendments to
restore gender-separated living quarters and basic training in small units.
During the debate prior to adoption of the amendments by the full committee,
Taylor spoke plainly: "We're trying to get basic training back to training
recruits. There wasn't a great deal of discussion when they began mixing the
sexes. We can't wait forever."
Forever seems fine to the feminists, who have been noticeably quiet about a
new Aberdeen-sized scandal at the Navy’s Great Lakes Training Center. The
Chicago Tribune reported on May 8 that five drill instructors, called
recruit division commanders in the Navy, have been charged with
fraternization, obstruction of justice, abuse of authority, and various
kinds of sexual misconduct. According to Rep. Bartlett, charges include
voluntary sex games in exchange for special favors, coercive oral sex , and
the alleged impregnation of a female trainee by one of her instructors. The
parallel with Aberdeen is striking, and ominous.
Only a few months ago, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen was lauding Great
Lakes, the Navy’s only boot camp, as a "role model" for gender-integrated
training. During a visit last September, Secretary Cohen enthused about
strong "leadership" and "accountability" that the experts said would prevent
sex scandals. Alas, the Navy’s own Titanic has just scraped the iceberg.
Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is not willing to wait until
three years after Aberdeen to do something about sex scandals in the
military. An amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill sponsored by
Brownback and several other senators would mirror legislation, already
adopted by the House, requiring boot camps to separate men and women in
their sleeping areas after hours. Such a measure would be a modest first
step to minimize a problem that isn’t going away.
Basic training should not be a proving ground for feminist theories. It is
the first building block in a process designed to teach discipline and
military skills, including survival. To successfully transform civilians
into uniformed members of the armed forces, concentration is essential, and
distractions must be kept to a minimum.
After a five-year trial ending in 1982, gender-integrated basic training was
declared a failure. Women were suffering excessive injuries, and men were
not being challenged enough. Nevertheless, the Clinton Administration
revived the program in 1994, with no congressional oversight or convincing
justification. To avoid failure this time around, proponents have simply
redefined success, in terms of women’s morale. To accommodate women’s
capabilities, physical training components have been reduced or
gender-normed, less-demanding requirements have been assigned greater
importance, and focus groups measure "cohesion" in terms of touchy-feely
emotions.
Reported benefits of gender-mixed basic training range from non-existent to
minimal at best. In return, co-ed training and sleeping arrangements have
led to sexual abuse and exploitation of young women trainees, universal
bewilderment about appropriate behavior, gender-normed standards that reduce
the challenge for men, an alarming decline in recruiting numbers (except in
the Marine Corps), and serious deficiencies in advanced training that may be
related to boot camp distractions.
Feminist advocates keep insisting "we must train as we fight." But if we
fight as we train—burdened with unprecedented disciplinary problems that our
potential enemies do not have—America’s armed forces will be in deep
trouble. As Rep. Taylor told military representatives back in March, "You’re
wasting a lot of time trying to gender-norm things. I think it’s crazy....It
’s not OK. It’s not working." Corrective measures are long overdue. As
Congress prepares to act, members have nothing to fear but "fem fear"
itself.
* * * * * *
Paul Jacobsen
>
>You, my whining friend, are just another punk with no experience who does
not want
>to face his own words.
>You are just a pitiful excuse for a man and you know it. Won't even meet
me for a
>beer.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
>
Little cadet kneels at the foot of the bed
Droops on little hands little helmet - covered head
Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares!
Cadet Roger P. Airborne is saying his prayers!!
God bless SecDef, I know that' right
Wasn't it fun in the bath tonight?
The cold's so cold, the hot's so hot
Oh! God bless the CO, I quit forgot!
- with apologies to A.A. Milne -
Patrick Pemberton
it twice made you doubly effective, right?
Paul Jacobsen reshaped the electrons to say:
Roger L. Perkins
Roger
AIRBORNE!
pa...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <359FED0F...@sisna.com>,
> "Roger L. Perkins" <pe...@sisna.com> wrote:
>
> > Must be back on meds because your story has changed - again.
> > And you cap key is stuck - again.
>
> > Ken, you have been such a bitter and vitrolic poster against women what makes you think anyone is listening now that you have changed your STORY. Opps... stuck. Besides, you have not or very little experience to back your position up.
>
> Just 4 years active and two active reserve Roger. And my story has NOT
> changed. Your has however. We had a head to toe on women meeting men in
> drills and you claimed they could MORE than hold their own. From the start I
> said **SOME** women certainly could. Not enough to justify the cost of the
> programs YOU proposed.
>
b52...@mindspring.com
Fire tongue .... Tell me were you live.... I will have a beer with you.
Young Captain
Roger L. Perkins wrote in message <359B91D2...@sisna.com>...
>Hey, I'm willing to back this up. Didn't I ask you out for a beer to
discuss
>things? But noooo... I guess facing those you lie about isn't your style.
Such
>a coward. As usual you have your cap key stuck and couldn't write truth if
you
>had to. You are such a pitiful little man. What a pathetic excuse for a
human
>being. No wonder you have no friends on the net. Everyone see's you for
what
>you are. Hey! Tell us again how you got shot down and had to E&E (thats
escape
>and evade. I know how nomenclature confuses you) out of NVN! I love that
one.
>
>Hey! I got an idea! Lets post this over to alt.cadet so they can see how
you
>talk outside the bb! Yeah! Your terms for woman and your complete
disrespect
>for the gender will be a good education for how not to do it.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
>
>pa...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>