Ya drugoi takoi strany ne znayu
sasha
Vru, znayu esche odnu - Liviyu. Nu mozhet mne kto nibud' ob'yasnit',
pochemu eti mudaki tak boyatsya vozdushnyh sharov?
Sasha
P.S. Dlya neposvyaschennyh: Rossiya i Liviya ne razreshili
amerikanskomu vozduhoplavatelyu Stivu Fossetu (sp?), kotoryi pytalsya
sovershit' krugosvetnoe puteshestvie na vozdushnom share, peresech' ih
dragotsennoe vozdushnoe prostranstvo. Kstati, Liviya potom peredumala,
no bylo uzhe pozdno.
netscape
sasha wrote:
>
> Vru, znayu esche odnu - Liviyu. Nu mozhet mne kto nibud' ob'yasnit',
> pochemu eti mudaki tak boyatsya vozdushnyh sharov?
>
> Sasha
Sam ty mudak.
Dima Volodin
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:47:44 CST, sa...@dragon.whoi.edu (sasha) wrote:
>
>Vru, znayu esche odnu - Liviyu. Nu mozhet mne kto nibud' ob'yasnit',
>pochemu eti mudaki tak boyatsya vozdushnyh sharov?
Pro mudakov mogu tol'ko skazat', chto neumenie obschatsa s
bureaucratami u esli ne mudakovatost', to uzh priznak nekotoroi
neadekvatnosti tochno.
A vot takoi vopros - a skol'ko vremeni potrebovalos' by liviiskomu,
skazhem, vozduhoplavatel'u, chtoby poluchit' razreshenie na prolet nad
Shtatami? I escho odin vopros - pochemu eti mudaki v Evrope tak
boyatsa russkih inzhenerov, kotorye pytayutsa s'ezdit' tuda na otdyh,
otdohnut' ot interesnoi, no nervnoi raboty v Shtatah? Mesiac (!)
trebovalos', chtoby poluchit' ispanskuyu vizu, pri etom trebovalos'
dokazat', chto ty ne verbliud i voobsche.
>Sasha
Dima
Andrew Mirzoev
sasha wrote:
>
> Vru, znayu esche odnu - Liviyu. Nu mozhet mne kto nibud' ob'yasnit',
> pochemu eti mudaki tak boyatsya vozdushnyh sharov?
zabotyatsya, srazu sbivayut napoval.
2. A voobsche - somnevayus chtoby Iraq, China ili Iran razreshili by
podobnoe bezobrazie kak "polety inostranny millionerov nad rodnoi
territoriey".
3. Nechego ih priuchat letat kogda kuda komu prspichit - pust
oformlyayut vse zaranee i platyat skolko potrebuetsya vsem komu nado :)
Regards
Andrew
from another London
Vladimir Smirnov
sasha (sa...@dragon.whoi.edu) wrote:
: Vru, znayu esche odnu - Liviyu. Nu mozhet mne kto nibud' ob'yasnit',
: pochemu eti mudaki tak boyatsya vozdushnyh sharov?
Eto tot sluchaj, kogda otvet uzhe soderzhitsja v voprose.
Pochemu mudaki bojatsja vozdushnyx sharov? V kakom 1917 godu
proizoshla oktjabr'skaja revoljucija?
- Smirnov
Leman
Andrew Mirzoev <mir...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>Regards
>Andrew
>from another London
>From London, Ontario?
Leman
Nikolay G. Shulga
d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
<...>
> I escho odin vopros - pochemu eti mudaki v Evrope tak
>boyatsa russkih inzhenerov, kotorye pytayutsa s'ezdit' tuda na otdyh,
>otdohnut' ot interesnoi, no nervnoi raboty v Shtatah? Mesiac (!)
>trebovalos', chtoby poluchit' ispanskuyu vizu, pri etom trebovalos'
>dokazat', chto ty ne verbliud i voobsche.
'Znau ia eto otdelenie, tam komu popalo vydaut pasporta..."
Nu khot' varenoj kuritsej-to tebia ne bili?
Doesn't seem to be a problem for american engineers of Russian origin.
I guess you guys got some bad reputation in Spain...
Cheers,
NS
sasha
smi...@www.video-collage.com (Vladimir Smirnov) wrote:
> Eto tot sluchaj, kogda otvet uzhe soderzhitsja v voprose.
>Pochemu mudaki bojatsja vozdushnyx sharov? V kakom 1917 godu
>proizoshla oktjabr'skaja revoljucija?
Nu razumeetsya. Zaimstvuya iz Pavlika, "eto byla prosto popytka
zaregistrirovat' nekoe nastroenie." Sami posudite: zhit' ya tam uzhe
davno ne zhivu, i dal'she ne sobirayus', na**at' mne na nih vseh
mudakov (vklyuchaya nekotoryh, kogo po oshibke za okean zaneslo) s
vysokoi kolokol'ni. An net - proiskhodit ocherednaya takaya istoriya,
i ya opyat' zol, kak budto uvidel plakat "Slava KPSS". Porazitel'no.
Sasha
Dima Volodin
Nichego, nichego. Nekotorye tak voobsche na silhouettes opredelennogo
tipa reagiruyut sil'nym vozbuzhdeniem, im dazhe slov ne nado. Nu ya
tak slyshal, chto gruppovaia terapiya chudesa tvorit. Ne hotite
poprobovat'? Net? Ili prozac? I nikakih mood swings. Pobochnye
yavleniya, pravda, sluchayutsa. Nu tak zato kak spokoino na dushe
budet? Nu horosho. Escho variant - rrrroman zakrutite. Da tak, chtob
na vsio ostal'noe ni sil, ni vremeni ne ostavalos'. Tozhe pomogaet.
Mozhno escho poushi v rabotu uiti, no tut veroyatnost' depressii
neskol'ko vyshe budet.
Hotia s drugoi storony, mozhet, prosto adrenaliny ne hvataet. Tozhe
mogu sovetov nadavat' besplatnyh. Chtob uzh naverniaka: ochen'
rekomenduyu base jumping. Mogu dazhe imen/adresov/telefonov podkinut'.
>Sasha
Dima
Vsio, vsio. Poslednii seans. Postarayus' bole ne uvlekat'sa.
sasha
Andrew Mirzoev <mir...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>> Vru, znayu esche odnu - Liviyu. Nu mozhet mne kto nibud' ob'yasnit',
>> pochemu eti mudaki tak boyatsya vozdushnyh sharov?
>1. Ne boyatsya, a zabotyatsya... Vot v Belorussii dazhe i ne
>zabotyatsya, srazu sbivayut napoval.
A chto, byli pretsedenty?
>2. A voobsche - somnevayus chtoby Iraq, China ili Iran razreshili by
>podobnoe bezobrazie kak "polety inostranny millionerov nad rodnoi
>territoriey".
Nu privral, poimali. Deistvitel'no, est' takie strany.
>3. Nechego ih priuchat letat kogda kuda komu prspichit - pust
>oformlyayut vse zaranee i platyat skolko potrebuetsya vsem komu nado :)
Razumno :-)
Sasha
Nikolay G. Shulga
Net, chto ne govori, a Emacs-doctor v rukah Volodina -
strashnoj sily oruzhie...
NS
Dima Volodin
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 06:41:46 CST, Konstantin Brotzmann
<brko...@FH-Karlsruhe.DE> wrote:
>
>
>
>d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
> <...>
>> I escho odin vopros - pochemu eti mudaki v Evrope tak
>
> A drugoi' vopros, pravda chto, mudak mudaka vidit iz daleka ?
Ne znayu. A chto?
>>boyatsa russkih inzhenerov, kotorye pytayutsa s'ezdit' tuda na otdyh,
>
> russkich ne bojatsja, no pytajutsja chislennost' regulirovat',
> kuda ne plun' (dazhe v potolok) russkii' ili byvshii' rossii'skii'
> poddanyi'.
A mne-to ot etogo kakoe nahui? I tomu letunu, kotoryi do sih por ne
mozhet poniat', gde on ves' kerosin stravil? Ne davali v'ehat'
vovremia, chem ves'ma nastroenie podportili.
>>otdohnut' ot interesnoi, no nervnoi raboty v Shtatah? Mesiac (!)
>
> tem bolee shtatovskim, v dannyi' moment tut delat' nechego -
> dobro pozhalovat' kogda dollar upadeot, a to ish reshil za groshy
> pesoek v Barselone popinat'.
Nifiga sebe, groshi. Tarelka Jamon Iberico skoka stoit? To-to zhe.
Escho bol'shee zapodlo, chto ne vvezesh' etih nog v Shtaty, nu eto
uzhe drugaia bureaucratiya. A benzin, benzin-to tam pochem?
Nadrugatel'stvo nad amerikanskim obrazom zhizni odno, pravo slovo.
>>trebovalos', chtoby poluchit' ispanskuyu vizu, pri etom trebovalos'
>>dokazat', chto ty ne verbliud i voobsche.
>
> nadejus' chto obsh'ajus' ne s verbludom ?!
Da ih poimesh' razve... Tem bolee, chto vizu v rezul'tate poluchil v
portugal'skom posol'stve. Tozhe ne bez gemorroya, no tam hot' uyutno -
malen'kii takoi domik, nikakih tebe priemnyh zal s
okoshkami-intercomami v stekliannyh stenah. Dereviannaya stoechka - i
vsio. I devushki schebechut na svoem narechii, chto tvoi rabyni
Izaury.
> Kostik :)
Dima
Konstantin Brotzmann
d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
<...>
> I escho odin vopros - pochemu eti mudaki v Evrope tak
A drugoi' vopros, pravda chto, mudak mudaka vidit iz daleka ?
>boyatsa russkih inzhenerov, kotorye pytayutsa s'ezdit' tuda na otdyh,
russkich ne bojatsja, no pytajutsja chislennost' regulirovat',
kuda ne plun' (dazhe v potolok) russkii' ili byvshii' rossii'skii'
poddanyi'.
>otdohnut' ot interesnoi, no nervnoi raboty v Shtatah? Mesiac (!)
tem bolee shtatovskim, v dannyi' moment tut delat' nechego -
dobro pozhalovat' kogda dollar upadeot, a to ish reshil za groshy
pesoek v Barselone popinat'.
>trebovalos', chtoby poluchit' ispanskuyu vizu, pri etom trebovalos'
>dokazat', chto ty ne verbliud i voobsche.
nadejus' chto obsh'ajus' ne s verbludom ?!
Kostik :)
Dima Volodin
Da, chut' ne zabyl, pro adrenalin i fizkul'turu: vot illustraciya:
http://www.skydive.ru/~yuri/95-2.jpg
Dima
Dima Volodin
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:57:28 CST, rq...@oes.amdahl.com (Roman Kostin)
wrote:
>In article <33047f57.479230534@localhost>, Dima Volodin <d...@dvv.ru> wrote:
>>
>>Nichego, nichego. Nekotorye tak voobsche na silhouettes opredelennogo
>>tipa reagiruyut sil'nym vozbuzhdeniem, im dazhe slov ne nado.
>
>Eto, na samom dele, gorazdo shire rasprostraneno, chem mnogim kazhetsya.
>U menya, naprimer, albom Deep Purple "Burn" vyzyvaet takuyu erektsiyu,
>chto prosto stolbnyak. Kak-to rasskazal ya ob etom Zaharu Borisovichu,
>vot tak i rasskazal: "Ty znaesh', Zak, a u menya ot Burn'a stolbnyak".
>"Did you know you're a pervert?" - otvetil Zak (chto smeshno samo po
>sebe). Vse vstalo na svoi mesta, kogda vyyasnilos', chto ya-to imel
>v vidu Deep Purple, a Zak - Talking Heads, t.e. David'a Byrne'a. Nu,
>kogda ya ego zaveril, chto na Talking Heads u menya ne vstaet, on
>skazal, chto ya ne polnost'yu beznadezhen. Ya, pravda, do sih por ne
>znayu, o kakoj nadezhde on govoril, no eto, sudya po vsemu, ne tak i
>vazhno.
>
>Polezno byvaet ustanovit' dostoverno, chto rech' idet ob odnom i tom
>zhe.
Nu tak ustanovimshi - ya vam oboim skazhu - nashli chego sravnit'.
Klassika, mozhno skazat', vseh vremen i narodov s chem-to
gusto-fioletovym. Teper' idi, dokazhi, chto vy oba - ne togo (smeh v
zale).
Kstati, Tolik (ty znaesh') prodemonstriroval mne LP (natural'no
vinilovyi), gde Ian Dury so Slyem i Robbie. Ya tak i sel.
>>Vsio, vsio. Poslednii seans. Postarayus' bole ne uvlekat'sa.
>
>Da ladno tebe...
Ladno-ne ladno, a mne starshie tovarischi uzhe ukazyvat' nachali.
>Kostin
Cheers
Dima
getting back to the sixpack of Bass and the fireplace
Andrew Mirzoev
sasha wrote:
>
> smi...@www.video-collage.com (Vladimir Smirnov) wrote:
>
> > Eto tot sluchaj, kogda otvet uzhe soderzhitsja v voprose.
> >Pochemu mudaki bojatsja vozdushnyx sharov? V kakom 1917 godu
> >proizoshla oktjabr'skaja revoljucija?
>
> Nu razumeetsya. Zaimstvuya iz Pavlika, "eto byla prosto popytka
> zaregistrirovat' nekoe nastroenie." Sami posudite: zhit' ya tam uzhe
> davno ne zhivu, i dal'she ne sobirayus', na**at' mne na nih vseh
> mudakov (vklyuchaya nekotoryh, kogo po oshibke za okean zaneslo) s
> vysokoi kolokol'ni. An net - proiskhodit ocherednaya takaya istoriya,
> i ya opyat' zol, kak budto uvidel plakat "Slava KPSS". Porazitel'no.
>
Mda, nevrozy izlechivayutsya ne srazu. Poka nado poterpet'... :)
Regards
Andrew
from another London (ON,CA)
Andrew Mirzoev
sasha wrote:
>
> Andrew Mirzoev <mir...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Vru, znayu esche odnu - Liviyu. Nu mozhet mne kto nibud' ob'yasnit',
> >> pochemu eti mudaki tak boyatsya vozdushnyh sharov?
> >1. Ne boyatsya, a zabotyatsya... Vot v Belorussii dazhe i ne
> >zabotyatsya, srazu sbivayut napoval.
>
> A chto, byli pretsedenty?
"just in case". AFAIR, the poor guys planned to fly over
Belorussia/Russia but did not receive permission from Belarus.
Regards
Andrew
"looking from London"
> Sasha
sasha
Andrew Mirzoev <mir...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>> >> pochemu eti mudaki tak boyatsya vozdushnyh sharov?
>> >1. Ne boyatsya, a zabotyatsya... Vot v Belorussii dazhe i ne
>> >zabotyatsya, srazu sbivayut napoval.
>>
>> A chto, byli pretsedenty?
>In 1996, two American balloonists were shot down by "local" MIG
>"just in case". AFAIR, the poor guys planned to fly over
>Belorussia/Russia but did not receive permission from Belarus.
Eto ya propustil. M-da. Net slov. Pravil'no mestnoe naselenie lyubit
govorit', chto vse nado videt' v perspective. :-(
Interesno, stal by Iran ili Irak vot tak srazu bez razgovorov sbivat'?
Sasha
sasha
Andrew Mirzoev <mir...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>Mda, nevrozy izlechivayutsya ne srazu. Poka nado poterpet'... :)
Nevroz - fignya. Ya uzh boyalsya, chto s'el chto-to ne to. Spasibo,
doctor! :-)
Sasha
Dima Volodin
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:15:38 CST, d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 06:41:46 CST, Konstantin Brotzmann
>> [...]
>> nadejus' chto obsh'ajus' ne s verbludom ?!
> [moi razglagol'stvovaniya sovershenno ne pro moyu verbliudnost']
Mmmm-da. Est' takaya shtuka v russkom yazyke - glagol pospriagat'. Nu
tak vot, poskol'ku obratnoe ne dokazano, mozhno schitat' menia
verbliudom. Ili sobakoi. Ili millionom obezian, figachashim po
klavisham. Mozhno, konechno, posmotret' na pohmel'nuyu rozhu
piatiletnei davnosti na
http://www.siber.com/sib/internet/RussianNetStory.html, no i zdes' net
nikakoi garantii, chto eto ne opticheskaya aberraciya, i chto na samom
dele eto ne verblyud. Vo vsiakom sluchaye, kremvax dolzhen byl byt'
szadi menia, a ne snizu.
>Dima
Dima
the same one
Dima Volodin
Andrew Mirzoev (mir...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: sasha wrote:
: >
: > Andrew Mirzoev <mir...@netcom.ca> wrote:
: >
: > >> Vru, znayu esche odnu - Liviyu. Nu mozhet mne kto nibud' ob'yasnit',
: > >1. Ne boyatsya, a zabotyatsya... Vot v Belorussii dazhe i ne
: > >zabotyatsya, srazu sbivayut napoval.
: >
: > A chto, byli pretsedenty?
: In 1996, two American balloonists were shot down by "local" MIG
: "just in case". AFAIR, the poor guys planned to fly over
: Belorussia/Russia but did not receive permission from Belarus.
It wasn't MiG, it was some kind of a chopper (Mi-8?)
: Andrew
Dima
Nikolay G. Shulga
d...@newsreader.sprintlink.net (Dima Volodin) wrote:
<...>
>: In 1996, two American balloonists were shot down by "local" MIG
>: "just in case".
<..>
>It wasn't MiG, it was some kind of a chopper (Mi-8?)
Which is very relevant here.
NS
Dima Volodin
It somewhat is, as the whole incident was a major
military-bureaucratic screw-up. The balloonist had never received the
official permission to cross the Belorussian territory, and the AA
forces never had the information about their fly-through. The chopper
pilots spent some time trying to figure out what's going on, and,
after not getting anything from the balloon, and their superiors'
order to shoot down the damn thing (which in their educated opinion
was nothing more than unmanned spy balloon), just strafed it. It was
not like some jet jock blew it from the sky for the sheer fun of it.
>NS
Dima
Rostyk Lewyckyj
|
|>NS
|
|Dima
|
What was the length of time available to the soviet Russian governments
command structure and military, to look at what was going on and reach
a decision on the appropriate course of action? Was it on the order of
days, hours (< day), <1hr., < 10min. ?
i.e. were they under great time pressure ?
Dima Volodin
>What was the length of time available to the soviet Russian governments
>command structure and military, to look at what was going on and reach
>a decision on the appropriate course of action? Was it on the order of
>days, hours (< day), <1hr., < 10min. ?
>i.e. were they under great time pressure ?
a) There were neither Soviet (it was too late for them) nor Russian
(it was in Belarus') governmental or military structures involved.
b) Instead of asking me - a layman in things military - you'd better
use some kind of a search engine. E.g.
http://av.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=belarus+balloon&hc=0&hs=0 gives good
enough overview of what happened.
Dima
Andrew Mirzoev
> >> >1. Ne boyatsya, a zabotyatsya... Vot v Belorussii dazhe i ne
> >> >zabotyatsya, srazu sbivayut napoval.
....
> Interesno, stal by Iran ili Irak vot tak srazu bez razgovorov sbivat'?
>
IMHO, no. They would simply try to avoid any responsibility for any
accident with any foreign baloon in such case - because NATO/US could
respond with some "profilactical measures" (i.e.bombing) => these
countries would not allow the baloon into their air space. But
(ex?)Soviet people know well how to give firm reply to any aggressive
actions. And Soviet fighter pilots know well how to shot down all these
spy baloons (sorry, found myself in the "Smirnov-from-LPD" mode :)
Regards
Andrew
from the bank of the river Thames
> Sasha
Yury Mukharsky
Rostyk Lewyckyj wrote:
>
> |>>: In 1996, two American balloonists were shot down by "local" MIG
> What was the length of time available to the soviet Russian governments
> command structure and military, to look at what was going on and reach
> a decision on the appropriate course of action? Was it on the order of
> days, hours (< day), <1hr., < 10min. ?
> i.e. were they under great time pressure ?
I approximately -2 years, as far as I remember.
Yury.
Nikolay G. Shulga
>pilots spent some time trying to figure out what's going on, and,
>after not getting anything from the balloon, and their superiors'
>order to shoot down the damn thing (which in their educated opinion
>was nothing more than unmanned spy balloon), just strafed it. It was
Well, that proves the Sasha's point. You got to be reallly paranoid to mistake a
recreational balloon for a spy one. Ever seen a spy balloon designed to increase
its radar visibility, the way recreational balloons are? Or painted red/yellow?
I mean, the C-125 AA radar, circa 1963, which we were trained on at college,
would show the difference plain enough.
In fact, the assholes followed the same S.O.P. we were taught - when you get a
stationary target on your screen for some time, you call in a chopper or two to
investigate. As our colonel described it - "Nu, tut oficer navadenia zvonit
sosedu, v vertoletnyj polk, i govorit - slushaj, ebni etu tzel', chego-to
ona mudrit". They were also supposed to try identifying it by its reflecting
area; no professional AA officer would mistake that thing for a spy balloon.
>not like some jet jock blew it from the sky for the sheer fun of it.
To me, it looks exactly like what happened.
NS
Tak a chego s kill-file'om-to? Ne zavoditsia? :-)
Dima Volodin
On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:43:13 CST, "Nikolay G. Shulga"
<Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>>On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:01:11 CST, "Nikolay G. Shulga"
>> The chopper
>>pilots spent some time trying to figure out what's going on, and,
>>after not getting anything from the balloon, and their superiors'
>>order to shoot down the damn thing (which in their educated opinion
>>was nothing more than unmanned spy balloon), just strafed it. It was
>
>Well, that proves the Sasha's point. You got to be reallly paranoid to mistake a
>recreational balloon for a spy one. Ever seen a spy balloon designed to increase
>its radar visibility, the way recreational balloons are? Or painted red/yellow?
>I mean, the C-125 AA radar, circa 1963, which we were trained on at college,
>would show the difference plain enough.
A balloon hovering close to a military installation without getting in
touch with the authorities might be anything, including spy or
whatever one. One extreme example of recreational activity is
hang-gliding in Southern Lebanon - it adds extra thrill of being shot
down by the Israelis.
>In fact, the assholes followed the same S.O.P. we were taught - when you get a
>stationary target on your screen for some time, you call in a chopper or two to
>investigate. As our colonel described it - "Nu, tut oficer navadenia zvonit
>sosedu, v vertoletnyj polk, i govorit - slushaj, ebni etu tzel', chego-to
>ona mudrit". They were also supposed to try identifying it by its reflecting
>area; no professional AA officer would mistake that thing for a spy balloon.
Well, whatever. As I said, I have absolutely no military education or
experience of any kind (except for the "elementary military training"
in high school). For more information on those things one might as
well search the net with good enough results.
>NS
>
>Tak a chego s kill-file'om-to? Ne zavoditsia? :-)
A nahrena? Gde zh ya togda naidu sravnitel'nyi analiz tvorchestva
N.Korzhavina i P.Afanasieva?
Dima
Nicolai Kitanine
In article <32f62887.2332010@localhost>, d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) writes:
>
> It somewhat is, as the whole incident was a major
> military-bureaucratic screw-up. The balloonist had never received the
> official permission to cross the Belorussian territory, and the AA
> pilots spent some time trying to figure out what's going on, and,
> after not getting anything from the balloon, and their superiors'
> order to shoot down the damn thing (which in their educated opinion
> was nothing more than unmanned spy balloon), just strafed it. It was
>
>
Eta versija byla pridumana v hode "rassledovanija" belorusskimi vlastyami.
V dejstvitel'nosti VSE evropejskie strany dali soglasie na prolet vozdushnyh
sharov nad ih territoriej (i Belorussija ne byla isklyucheniem). Srabotala
standartnaja nasha shema kogda pravaja ruka ne znaet, chto delaet levaja.
Razreshenie daval MID, no ne potrudilsya soobschit' ob etom v MO. Takim obrazom
osnovnaja prichina byla v etom. Bezuslovno eto ne opravdyvaet varvarskih dejstvij
kommandovanija belorusskogo PVO (hochu napomnit' staryj primer s sovetskim
voennym samoletom, kotoryj posle katapul'tirovanija pilota proletel nad vsej
Evropoj i ne byl sbit tak kak u PVO ne bylo uverennosti, chto v kabine nikogo net).
Chto kasaetsya "popytok ustanovlenija kontakta", to zdes' trudno skazat' chto-libo
opredelennoe. Po-vidimomu ekipazh shara prosto spal (naskol'ko ja pomnyu
dazhe podozrevali, chto u nih bylo chto-to tipa gornoj bolezni, no polnoj uverennosti
u menya net). Vse taki ochen' trudno vosstanovit' kartinu prestuplenija, kogda v
nalichii imejutsya tol'ko pokazanija ubijcy.
Odno jasno, chto prinyat' etot shar za shpionskij mog by tol'ko kruglyj idiot, i
dazhe v etom sluchae sbivat' ego ne bylo neobhodimosti t.k. on letel na vostok.
Takim obrazom eto bylo absolyutno nichem ne obosnovannoe ubijstvo bezzaschitnyh
lyudej.
Udivlyat'sya nechemu, ved' Lukashenko sam zajavlyal, vnutrennyaja politika
Hitlera byla ne tak uzh ploha i u nego mnogomu sleduet pouchit'sya.
Salutations,
Kolya
Nikolay G. Shulga
Dima Volodin
> Eta versija byla pridumana v hode "rassledovanija" belorusskimi vlastyami.
>V dejstvitel'nosti VSE evropejskie strany dali soglasie na prolet vozdushnyh
>sharov nad ih territoriej (i Belorussija ne byla isklyucheniem). Srabotala
>standartnaja nasha shema kogda pravaja ruka ne znaet, chto delaet levaja.
>Razreshenie daval MID, no ne potrudilsya soobschit' ob etom v MO. Takim obrazom
>osnovnaja prichina byla v etom.
Eto da.
>Bezuslovno eto ne opravdyvaet varvarskih dejstvij
>kommandovanija belorusskogo PVO (hochu napomnit' staryj primer s sovetskim
>voennym samoletom, kotoryj posle katapul'tirovanija pilota proletel nad vsej
>Evropoj i ne byl sbit tak kak u PVO ne bylo uverennosti, chto v kabine nikogo net).
Ne dumayu. Skoree vsego, ili prosto proshliapili (ego nado bylo sbit'
_do_ togo, kak on grohnulsia v chei-to dom i ubil vpolne konkretnogo
grazhdanina strany, kotorogo, po idee, PVO etoi strany dolzhno bylo
zaschitit'), ili escho huzhe - vsio zhdali, kogda zhe etot
perebezhchik posadku zaprosit.
> Chto kasaetsya "popytok ustanovlenija kontakta", to zdes' trudno skazat' chto-libo
>opredelennoe. Po-vidimomu ekipazh shara prosto spal (naskol'ko ja pomnyu
>dazhe podozrevali, chto u nih bylo chto-to tipa gornoj bolezni, no polnoj uverennosti
>u menya net). Vse taki ochen' trudno vosstanovit' kartinu prestuplenija, kogda v
>nalichii imejutsya tol'ko pokazanija ubijcy.
V nalichii imeyutsa ne tol'ko pokazaniya "ubiicy" (chto sluchilos' s
prezumpciei nevinovnosti, kstati?). Yahoo shodu vydala mne STATEMENT
BY FEDERATION AERONAUTIQUE INTERNATIONALE (FAI) ON THE OFFICIAL
REPORT INTO THE BELARUS BALLOON INCIDENT (eto ya ne oru - eto tak v
Yahoo). Tam i pro to, kak oni _ne_ spali, i pro to, kak tot shar,
kotoryi vyshel na sviaz', spokoino letel, poka mog, i kak escho odin
shar byl zastavlen prizemlitsa.
>Odno jasno, chto prinyat' etot shar za shpionskij mog by tol'ko kruglyj idiot, i
>dazhe v etom sluchae sbivat' ego ne bylo neobhodimosti t.k. on letel na vostok.
>Takim obrazom eto bylo absolyutno nichem ne obosnovannoe ubijstvo bezzaschitnyh
>lyudej.
Oficialnaya versiya - chto sbivali ne shpionskii shar, a zabludshii
meteorologicheskii. Chto tozhe, v obschem-to, stranno zvuchit.
> Udivlyat'sya nechemu, ved' Lukashenko sam zajavlyal, vnutrennyaja politika
>Hitlera byla ne tak uzh ploha i u nego mnogomu sleduet pouchit'sya.
Kstati, nedavno belarusami bylo nachato povtornoe rassledovanie
incidenta.
> Kolya
Dima
Nicolai Kitanine
In article <32f686a8.29826907@localhost>, d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) writes:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:08:56 CST, Nicolai....@ens-lyon.fr (Nicolai
> Kitanine) wrote:
> >Bezuslovno eto ne opravdyvaet varvarskih dejstvij
> >kommandovanija belorusskogo PVO (hochu napomnit' staryj primer s sovetskim
> >voennym samoletom, kotoryj posle katapul'tirovanija pilota proletel nad vsej
> >Evropoj i ne byl sbit tak kak u PVO ne bylo uverennosti, chto v kabine nikogo net).
>
> Ne dumayu. Skoree vsego, ili prosto proshliapili (ego nado bylo sbit'
> _do_ togo, kak on grohnulsia v chei-to dom i ubil vpolne konkretnogo
> grazhdanina strany, kotorogo, po idee, PVO etoi strany dolzhno bylo
> zaschitit'), ili escho huzhe - vsio zhdali, kogda zhe etot
> perebezhchik posadku zaprosit.
To chto ne prospali - eto tochno, istrebiteli PVO za nim leteli vsyu dorogu.
Drugoe delo, chto dopustim v Bel'gii, gde on tozhe proletel ochen' trudno
sbit' tak, chtoby samolet ne grohnulsya na chej-nibud' dom. Tak chto poka samolet
letel na zapad (t.e. ne mog "ischeznut'") ego ne trogali.
>
> V nalichii imeyutsa ne tol'ko pokazaniya "ubiicy" (chto sluchilos' s
> prezumpciei nevinovnosti, kstati?). Yahoo shodu vydala mne STATEMENT
> BY FEDERATION AERONAUTIQUE INTERNATIONALE (FAI) ON THE OFFICIAL
> REPORT INTO THE BELARUS BALLOON INCIDENT (eto ya ne oru - eto tak v
> Yahoo). Tam i pro to, kak oni _ne_ spali, i pro to, kak tot shar,
> kotoryi vyshel na sviaz', spokoino letel, poka mog, i kak escho odin
> shar byl zastavlen prizemlitsa.
Naschet prezumpcii nevinovnosti soglasen. Tak chto skazhem tak: pokazanija
podozrevaemogo.
A URL zajavlenija FAI Vy sluchajno ne zapomnili? Len' samomu iskat'...
> Oficialnaya versiya - chto sbivali ne shpionskii shar, a zabludshii
> meteorologicheskii. Chto tozhe, v obschem-to, stranno zvuchit.
>
> > Udivlyat'sya nechemu, ved' Lukashenko sam zajavlyal, vnutrennyaja politika
> >Hitlera byla ne tak uzh ploha i u nego mnogomu sleduet pouchit'sya.
>
> Kstati, nedavno belarusami bylo nachato povtornoe rassledovanie
> incidenta.
K sozhaleniju ja ne ochen' doveryaju belorusskim sledstvennym organam (prichina:
sm. vyshe). Tak chto suhoj ostatok: 2 trupa i ni odnogo nakazannogo.
I krome togo mne smertel'no nadoela eta idiotskaja ideologija osazhdennoj kreposti.
Soglasites', chto tol'ko v absolyutno izvraschennom mozgu mozhet pojavit'sya ideja
sbivat' zabludshij meteorologicheskij shar...
> Dima
>
Kolya
Dima Volodin
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:16:17 CST, Nicolai....@ens-lyon.fr (Nicolai
Kitanine) wrote:
>In article <32f686a8.29826907@localhost>, d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) writes:
>> On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:08:56 CST, Nicolai....@ens-lyon.fr (Nicolai
>> Kitanine) wrote:
>
>> >Bezuslovno eto ne opravdyvaet varvarskih dejstvij
>> >kommandovanija belorusskogo PVO (hochu napomnit' staryj primer s sovetskim
>> >voennym samoletom, kotoryj posle katapul'tirovanija pilota proletel nad vsej
>> >Evropoj i ne byl sbit tak kak u PVO ne bylo uverennosti, chto v kabine nikogo net).
>>
>> Ne dumayu. Skoree vsego, ili prosto proshliapili (ego nado bylo sbit'
>> _do_ togo, kak on grohnulsia v chei-to dom i ubil vpolne konkretnogo
>> grazhdanina strany, kotorogo, po idee, PVO etoi strany dolzhno bylo
>> zaschitit'), ili escho huzhe - vsio zhdali, kogda zhe etot
>> perebezhchik posadku zaprosit.
> To chto ne prospali - eto tochno, istrebiteli PVO za nim leteli vsyu dorogu.
I ne videli, chto kabina pustaya?
>Drugoe delo, chto dopustim v Bel'gii, gde on tozhe proletel ochen' trudno
>sbit' tak, chtoby samolet ne grohnulsya na chej-nibud' dom. Tak chto poka samolet
>letel na zapad (t.e. ne mog "ischeznut'") ego ne trogali.
Tak oboronitel'nuy blok NATO - on chto, s granic Bel'gii nachinaetsa?
Ili u nih PVO ne obschee? Kak zhe oni togda oboroniat'sa budut?
>> V nalichii imeyutsa ne tol'ko pokazaniya "ubiicy" (chto sluchilos' s
>> prezumpciei nevinovnosti, kstati?). Yahoo shodu vydala mne STATEMENT
>> BY FEDERATION AERONAUTIQUE INTERNATIONALE (FAI) ON THE OFFICIAL
>> REPORT INTO THE BELARUS BALLOON INCIDENT (eto ya ne oru - eto tak v
>> Yahoo). Tam i pro to, kak oni _ne_ spali, i pro to, kak tot shar,
>> kotoryi vyshel na sviaz', spokoino letel, poka mog, i kak escho odin
>> shar byl zastavlen prizemlitsa.
> Naschet prezumpcii nevinovnosti soglasen. Tak chto skazhem tak: pokazanija
>podozrevaemogo.
>A URL zajavlenija FAI Vy sluchajno ne zapomnili? Len' samomu iskat'...
Besplatnyi sovet - zovete yahoo (URL nuzhen?), a tam zabivaete
"Belarus balloon".
>> Kstati, nedavno belarusami bylo nachato povtornoe rassledovanie
>> incidenta.
> K sozhaleniju ja ne ochen' doveryaju belorusskim sledstvennym organam (prichina:
>sm. vyshe). Tak chto suhoj ostatok: 2 trupa i ni odnogo nakazannogo.
> I krome togo mne smertel'no nadoela eta idiotskaja ideologija osazhdennoj kreposti.
>Soglasites', chto tol'ko v absolyutno izvraschennom mozgu mozhet pojavit'sya ideja
>sbivat' zabludshij meteorologicheskij shar...
Da, luchshe dozhat'sa, kogda on nakrutitsa na tarelku PVO ili prosto
na LEP prisiadet.
>Kolya
Dima
Nikolay G. Shulga
>na LEP prisiadet.
Luchshe chem dva trupa. Okh i azarten ty, Paramosha...
Slushaj, a chto takoe tarelka PVO? Ni razu ne videl (nu krome kak v
stolovoj v/ch 28036 'ja')
NS
Nicolai Kitanine
In article <32fd3af0.75991038@localhost>, d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) writes:
> > To chto ne prospali - eto tochno, istrebiteli PVO za nim leteli vsyu dorogu.
>
> I ne videli, chto kabina pustaya?
chto skorosti tam byli suschestvenno nizhe)
>
> >Drugoe delo, chto dopustim v Bel'gii, gde on tozhe proletel ochen' trudno
> >sbit' tak, chtoby samolet ne grohnulsya na chej-nibud' dom. Tak chto poka samolet
> >letel na zapad (t.e. ne mog "ischeznut'") ego ne trogali.
>
> Tak oboronitel'nuy blok NATO - on chto, s granic Bel'gii nachinaetsa?
> Ili u nih PVO ne obschee? Kak zhe oni togda oboroniat'sa budut?
(pilot katapul'tirovalsya nad GDR, eto bylo dovol'no davno). Sleduet
uchest', chto esli by sbityj samolet upal by na chej-to dom to poleteli by PVOshnye
golovy... Esli by samolet byl sbit, a potom by vyjasnilos', chto pilot byl
bez soznanija to skandal byl by v evropejskoj presse kolossal'nyj i tozhe skoree
vsego komu-to by prishlos' rasstat'sya so svoim postom. V Belorussii nichego etogo
ne proizoshlo (skandal v presse byl, no VNE Belorussii).
Krome togo dazhe tot fakt, chto PVO ne znalo o prolete sharov govorit o
nekompetentnosti PVO. Ja podozrevaju chto ves' efir byl zabit peregovorami
ekipazhej i chem zanimalas' "radiotehnicheskaja razvedka" ja ne znaju (bolee
togo u nih v sovetskoe vremya byli sluzhby, kotorye sledili za zapadnoj pressoj
i dolzhny byli by soobschit' o vozmozhnom pojavlenii etih samyh sharov).
> Da, luchshe dozhat'sa, kogda on nakrutitsa na tarelku PVO ili prosto
> na LEP prisiadet.
verojatnost' oboih ishodov vse-taki ves'ma nevelika. Ne dumaju, chto dazhe
v samoj tupoj general'skoj golove ne vsplyla mysl' "a vdrug tam lyudi". Problema
v tom, chto generalam na eto bylo ABSOLYUTNO naplevat'.
> Dima
>
Kolya
Alex Glotov
Alex Glotov (hedron!glo...@uunet.uu.net) wrote:
>esli uzh shar sbili, znachit vsjo-taki PVO ne spalo. a chuvaku za
>radarom i ne objazatel'no sledit', kto tam letaet cherez granicu : cel'
>est' i prisjaga tozhe.
>vinovat konechno tot balbes-nachal'nik, kto byl otvetstvenen za
>mezhdunarodnye soglashenija po povodu vsjakih tam ballonov.
>Alex
zabyl dobavit': po povodu vsjakih podozritel'nyh ballonov.
Dima Volodin
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:05:42 CST, "Nikolay G. Shulga"
<Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
><...>
>>Da, luchshe dozhat'sa, kogda on nakrutitsa na tarelku PVO ili prosto
>>na LEP prisiadet.
>
>Luchshe chem dva trupa. Okh i azarten ty, Paramosha...
Tak poimeli dva trupa, a inache - bog znaet, skol'ko trupov moglo by
poluchitsa.
>Slushaj, a chto takoe tarelka PVO? Ni razu ne videl (nu krome kak v
>stolovoj v/ch 28036 'ja')
A dlia menia vsio, chto napravlenno izlucahet i prinimaet radiosignal
- tarelki. Kak eto v v/ch 28036 'ja' nazyvalos' - yasnoe delo, cho
tem, kto tam pitalsia, vidnee.
>NS
Dima
Dima Volodin
>In article <32fd3af0.75991038@localhost>, d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) writes:
>> > To chto ne prospali - eto tochno, istrebiteli PVO za nim leteli vsyu dorogu.
>>
>> I ne videli, chto kabina pustaya?
>To zhe samoe mozhno sprosit' pro belorusskih vertoletchikov (tem bolee esli uchest',
>chto skorosti tam byli suschestvenno nizhe)
Nu, skazhem, est' nekotoraya raznica mezhdu tem, chto mozhno uvidet' v
kabine samoleta, iz kotoroi katapul'tirovalis' piloty, i zakrytoi
gondoloi shara.
>> >Drugoe delo, chto dopustim v Bel'gii, gde on tozhe proletel ochen' trudno
>> >sbit' tak, chtoby samolet ne grohnulsya na chej-nibud' dom. Tak chto poka samolet
>> >letel na zapad (t.e. ne mog "ischeznut'") ego ne trogali.
>>
>> Tak oboronitel'nuy blok NATO - on chto, s granic Bel'gii nachinaetsa?
>> Ili u nih PVO ne obschee? Kak zhe oni togda oboroniat'sa budut?
>
>V Zapadnoj Germanii ta zhe situacija. Bel'giju ja vzyal prosto dlya primera
>(pilot katapul'tirovalsya nad GDR, eto bylo dovol'no davno). Sleduet
>uchest', chto esli by sbityj samolet upal by na chej-to dom to poleteli by PVOshnye
>golovy...
A tak - oi, kak horosho, Samolet upal, a golov (krome togo parnia,
kotoryi pogib) - ne poletelo. Udobno.
>Esli by samolet byl sbit, a potom by vyjasnilos', chto pilot byl
>bez soznanija to skandal byl by v evropejskoj presse kolossal'nyj i tozhe skoree
>vsego komu-to by prishlos' rasstat'sya so svoim postom.
Byli precedenty?
>V Belorussii nichego etogo
>ne proizoshlo (skandal v presse byl, no VNE Belorussii).
> Krome togo dazhe tot fakt, chto PVO ne znalo o prolete sharov govorit o
>nekompetentnosti PVO. Ja podozrevaju chto ves' efir byl zabit peregovorami
>ekipazhej i chem zanimalas' "radiotehnicheskaja razvedka" ja ne znaju (bolee
>togo u nih v sovetskoe vremya byli sluzhby, kotorye sledili za zapadnoj pressoj
>i dolzhny byli by soobschit' o vozmozhnom pojavlenii etih samyh sharov).
Pro zabitost' efira - sm. otchety. Pro to, chto nihrena ne rabotalo v
belarusskih voiskah - eto i tak poniatno.
>> Da, luchshe dozhat'sa, kogda on nakrutitsa na tarelku PVO ili prosto
>> na LEP prisiadet.
> verojatnost' oboih ishodov vse-taki ves'ma nevelika. Ne dumaju, chto dazhe
>v samoj tupoj general'skoj golove ne vsplyla mysl' "a vdrug tam lyudi". Problema
>v tom, chto generalam na eto bylo ABSOLYUTNO naplevat'.
Yasnoe delo - naplevat'. Fokus v tom, chto NATOvskim generalam bylo
tozhe naplevat' na zhizn' ne tol'ko pilotov, kotoryh na samolete ne
bylo, no i na zhizn' teh, na kogo neupravliaemyi samolet mog upast' -
i upal. Ne naplevat' im bylo na sobstvennye zadnicy. Tak chto,
pohozhe, eto u nih professional'noe.
Vsio to zhe samoe mozhno skazat' pochti pro vse sluchai friendly fire
- i s vertoletami, sbitymi amerikancami v severnom Irake, i
amerikanskimi soldatami, rasstrelyannymi s amerikanskogo vertoleta, v
Irake yuzhnom. Ni tam, ni tam, naskol'ko ya znayu, tolkom
otvetstvennosti nikto ne pones. Chto harakterno - amerikancam,
belarusam i sovkam voobcshe (KAL-007) - prosche streliat',
nemcam-bel'giicam - prosche ne streliat'. Neskol'ko daleko iduschee
psihologicheskoe zamechanie - pohozhe, chto u sovkov i amerikanov (k
nim, navernoe, escho anglichan mozhno otnesti) chuvstvo "svoi-chuzhoi"
sil'nee razvito, chem u beshrebetnyh evropeicev.
Tak chto esli kto drugoi takoi strany ne znaet - znachit, za
novostiami prosto ne sledit.
>Kolya
Dima
Nicolai Kitanine
In article <5d7rf5$5...@cs1.FTA-Berlin.de>, hedron!glo...@uunet.uu.net (Alex Glotov) writes:
> esli uzh shar sbili, znachit vsjo-taki PVO ne spalo. a chuvaku za
> radarom i ne objazatel'no sledit', kto tam letaet cherez granicu : cel'
> est' i prisjaga tozhe.
> vinovat konechno tot balbes-nachal'nik, kto byl otvetstvenen za
> mezhdunarodnye soglashenija po povodu vsjakih tam ballonov.
>
> Alex
>
>
On zhe medlenno polzet i pyatno nebos' neskol'ko minut na indikatore torchalo da esche
nebos' merzkie zvuki by izdavalo (ja pravda ne znaju kak eto proishodit v PVOshnyh
radarah). Reshenie zhe ob unichtozhenii prinimajut ne "chuvaki za radarom", a
PVOshnoe nachal'stvo, kotoroe obyazano bylo znat' o prolete sharov esli ne ot
MIDovskih chinovnikov, to hotya by ot sobstvennoj razvedki. Esli ono znalo
i prinyalo reshenie sbivat', to etih generalov nado sudit' za ubijstvo, esli ne
znalo to gnat' za sluzhebnoe nesootvetstvie.
Kolya
Dima Volodin
>In article <32fd3af0.75991038@localhost>, d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) writes:
>> > To chto ne prospali - eto tochno, istrebiteli PVO za nim leteli vsyu dorogu.
>>
>> I ne videli, chto kabina pustaya?
>To zhe samoe mozhno sprosit' pro belorusskih vertoletchikov (tem bolee esli uchest',
>chto skorosti tam byli suschestvenno nizhe)
Nu, skazhem, est' nekotoraya raznica mezhdu tem, chto mozhno uvidet' v
kabine samoleta, iz kotoroi katapul'tirovalis' piloty, i v zakrytoi
gondole shara.
Big Brother
Nicolai Kitanine wrote:
> >
> Ne zametit' vozdushnyj shar na radare mozhno tol'ko s ochen' bol'shogo boduna:
> On zhe medlenno polzet i pyatno nebos' neskol'ko minut na indikatore torchalo da esche
> nebos' merzkie zvuki by izdavalo (ja pravda ne znaju kak eto proishodit v PVOshnyh
> radarah).
> Kolya
Na 25-om est' est' takaya (neodnokratno mnoyu upominavshayasya) ruchka
kompensatcii skorosti vetra. No esli etu fignyu sbil samolet, to im dali
navedenie s SRTc, a uzh kakie tam ruchki - hren ego znaet.
S.S.
--
Isn't it strange that the same people that laugh at
gypsy fortune tellers take economists seriously?
Nicolai Kitanine
In article <33017047.89648853@localhost>, d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) writes:
> Yasnoe delo - naplevat'. Fokus v tom, chto NATOvskim generalam bylo
> tozhe naplevat' na zhizn' ne tol'ko pilotov, kotoryh na samolete ne
> bylo, no i na zhizn' teh, na kogo neupravliaemyi samolet mog upast' -
> i upal. Ne naplevat' im bylo na sobstvennye zadnicy. Tak chto,
> pohozhe, eto u nih professional'noe.
t.k. v otlichii ot rossijskih kolleg u nih hvataet uma ne torchat' vse vremya pered
telekamerami i ne demonstrirovat' nepreryvno svoj idiotizm. Krome etogo zdes'
vyrabotalsya mehanizm, kotoryj svyazyvaet udobstva general'skoj
zadnicy i izbezhanie bessmyslenogo krovoprolitija hotya by v mirnoe vremya. Ni v
Rossii ni v Belorussii takogo mehanizma net, chto i stalo prichinoj mnogih
tragedij.
>
> Vsio to zhe samoe mozhno skazat' pochti pro vse sluchai friendly fire
> - i s vertoletami, sbitymi amerikancami v severnom Irake, i
> amerikanskimi soldatami, rasstrelyannymi s amerikanskogo vertoleta, v
> Irake yuzhnom. Ni tam, ni tam, naskol'ko ya znayu, tolkom
> otvetstvennosti nikto ne pones. Chto harakterno - amerikancam,
> belarusam i sovkam voobcshe (KAL-007) - prosche streliat',
> nemcam-bel'giicam - prosche ne streliat'. Neskol'ko daleko iduschee
> psihologicheskoe zamechanie - pohozhe, chto u sovkov i amerikanov (k
> nim, navernoe, escho anglichan mozhno otnesti) chuvstvo "svoi-chuzhoi"
> sil'nee razvito, chem u beshrebetnyh evropeicev.
>
strelyat' neobhodimo, chto tozhe pravda. No mozhet byt' poetomu kollichestvo
ubijstv zdes' nastol'ko nizhe chem v Amerike i Rossii?
Sovetskie zhe generaly predpochitajut strelyat' v lyubyh obstojatel'stvah, po
principu "net cheloveka, net i problemy" i eto bezuslovno naibolee opasnaja
forma general'skogo idiotizma.
>
>
> Dima
>
Kolya
Nikolay G. Shulga
>- i s vertoletami, sbitymi amerikancami v severnom Irake, i
>amerikanskimi soldatami, rasstrelyannymi s amerikanskogo vertoleta, v
>Irake yuzhnom. Ni tam, ni tam, naskol'ko ya znayu, tolkom
>otvetstvennosti nikto ne pones.
Tam vrode nezadolgo do etogo kakie-to voennye dejstvia byli, ili ia chto-to putau?
V Belorussii strel'ba konchilas' godu tak v '49m...
A za vertolet v severnom irake neskol'ko chelovek pod tribunal zaletelo, esli ia
ne oshibaus'. Za khalatnost'- dereliction of duty. Chto, sobstvenno, i bylo.
Tak chto chto im po zakonu polagalos', to i poluchili.
>Chto harakterno - amerikancam,
>belarusam i sovkam voobcshe (KAL-007) - prosche streliat',
Naschet KAL007 ty voobsche zalepil gorbatogo. Eto otdel'nyj vopros chto on tam delal,
a vot kak ego sbivali - eto voobsche cirk. Esli by eti mudaki ego vovremia
zasekli, to 10 raz uspeli by razobrat'sia. A tak on uzhe ukhodil i nado bylo prikryvat' sebe
zhopy. Plus oni vse s perepoja byli - kakoj-to tam den' krasnoj zhopy byl nakanune.
No chto-to somnevaus' ia chtoby US Army v takoj zhe situacii stala streliat'.
NS
Da, a cherez god posle KAL007 byl ia na sborakh. Nu, stoit division na boevom dezhurstve,
nas, studentov, v kabinu ne puskaut, chtob, znachit, tolpy ne bylo. Drykhnu ia eto na travke,
dezhurnyj oficer dymit v kurilke.. tish' da blagodat'. Boevoj raschet, nado ponimat' za
vinno-vodochnym magazinom nabludaet, privezli ili net (u C-125 est' TVK - butylku vodki mozhno
razgliadet' kilometrov za 20, ili tam nudistskij pliazh, esli v Estonii, tol'ko kamera, svoloch',
cherno-belaia). Ny, vylezaet telefonist, gordyj syn Kavkaza, i izlagaet, chto mol, eta, minut
desiat' nazad nachal'nika zvonila. A chevo zvonila - a trevoga objavaliala... Nu, sirena, to, se.
Po nastavleniu, voobsche govoria, za tri minuty posle trevogi nado uzhe prognat' vse testy i byt'
gotovym streliat'.
Nikolay G. Shulga
Tut vspomnilas' mne odna istoria. Papa odnogo moego
khoroshego znakomogo paru let nazad obuchal svoikh kolleg
s 1/6 kak obespechivat' okhranu voennykh ob'ektov v
uslovijakh demokratii (papa eto okranial bazu v Newport, RI
kogda ona tam byla). Eto, znachit, v ramkah pomoschi NATO 1/6.
Ochen' trudno, zhalovalsia mne znakomyj, bylo pape ob'jasnit'
chto ne nado srazu kazhdogo pervogo prikladom po morde...
NS
Dima Volodin
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 14:20:55 CST, "Nikolay G. Shulga"
<Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
><...>
>>Vsio to zhe samoe mozhno skazat' pochti pro vse sluchai friendly fire
>>- i s vertoletami, sbitymi amerikancami v severnom Irake, i
>>amerikanskimi soldatami, rasstrelyannymi s amerikanskogo vertoleta, v
>>Irake yuzhnom. Ni tam, ni tam, naskol'ko ya znayu, tolkom
>>otvetstvennosti nikto ne pones.
>
>Tam vrode nezadolgo do etogo kakie-to voennye dejstvia byli, ili ia chto-to putau?
>V Belorussii strel'ba konchilas' godu tak v '49m...
I chego? Sut'-to v tom, chto postreliat' ochen' hotelos', v plto' do
togo, chto v techenie piati minut oba mudaka v vertolete ne mogli
zametit', chto te koordinaty, kotorye im bortovye pribory pokazyvali,
otlichayutsa _na neskol'ko mil'_ ot togo, chto im s zemli taldychili.
I eto ne crop duster byl kakoi-nibud' - natural'nyi Apache s
komputerami, GPSami, i pr. labudoi. Raskaivalis' potom, natural'no,
strashno.
>A za vertolet v severnom irake neskol'ko chelovek pod tribunal zaletelo, esli ia
>ne oshibaus'. Za khalatnost'- dereliction of duty. Chto, sobstvenno, i bylo.
>Tak chto chto im po zakonu polagalos', to i poluchili.
Aga. Tol'ko vertoliotov bylo _dva_, a ot tribunala te, kto zagremel
(piloty F-15), verdict "not guilty" poluchili.
>>Chto harakterno - amerikancam,
>>belarusam i sovkam voobcshe (KAL-007) - prosche streliat',
>
>Naschet KAL007 ty voobsche zalepil gorbatogo. Eto otdel'nyj vopros chto on tam delal,
>a vot kak ego sbivali - eto voobsche cirk. Esli by eti mudaki ego vovremia
>zasekli, to 10 raz uspeli by razobrat'sia. A tak on uzhe ukhodil i nado bylo prikryvat' sebe
>zhopy. Plus oni vse s perepoja byli - kakoj-to tam den' krasnoj zhopy byl nakanune.
Nu ya zh i govoriu - prosche streliat' bylo, chem naoborot.
>No chto-to somnevaus' ia chtoby US Army v takoj zhe situacii stala streliat'.
A bolgarskie Tu, pochemu-to, nad amerikanskimi voennymi bazami ne
sil'no letali. Da i pro US Army - ne znayu, a US Navy - tol'ko tak.
Iranskii Boeing, kotoryi letel sebe svoim reisom i nikogo ne trogal,
shibly - glazom ne morgnuli. Dazhe ne vedia voennyh deistvii ni protiv
kogo.
>NS
Dima
Alex Glotov
Nicolai Kitanine (Nicolai....@ens-lyon.fr) wrote: ... > Krome togo
dazhe tot fakt, chto PVO ne znalo o prolete sharov govorit o
>nekompetentnosti PVO. Ja podozrevaju chto ves' efir byl zabit
peregovorami >ekipazhej i chem zanimalas' "radiotehnicheskaja razvedka" ja
ne znaju (bolee >togo u nih v sovetskoe vremya byli sluzhby, kotorye
sledili za zapadnoj pressoj >i dolzhny byli by soobschit' o vozmozhnom
Dima Volodin
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 16:28:33 CST, "Nikolay G. Shulga"
<Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>>Kak eto v v/ch 28036 'ja' nazyvalos' - yasnoe delo, cho
>>tem, kto tam pitalsia, vidnee.
>
>Nu, s vidu izluchatel' ot C-125 skoree na 2 containera iz kitajskogo restorana
>pokhozh... ili na toschij takoj penis s treugol'nymi jajcami neverojatnykh
>razmerov, vsia konstrukcia vverkh nogami. U poslednikh radarov voobsche
>antenna stacionarnaja, vot SS-boy tebe objasnit pro fazirovannye reshetki.
Nu, pro fazirovannye reshetki mne tut Discovery channel pokazal v
peredachke pro kakoi-to iz sovetskih istrebitelei. Eto-to yasno.
>A chto kasaetsia vozmozhnosti povrezhdenij ot vozdushnogo shara, to ty menia opiat'
>poveselil.
Nu da, kakie uzh tam povrezhdeniya. Podumaesh, neskol'ko kubometrov
vodoroda ebanut. Chto nam Hindenburg, tem bolee malen'kii takoi.
>Ladno, ty luchshe skazhi, vot etot novyj standard na 56K baud dlia modemov -
>eto sovsem tufta ili net? A to USR khochet za upgrade chto-to vrode $10 S&H,
>a stoit ili net - neponiatno.
Stoit sviazyvat'sa s etim tol'ko v tom sluchaem, esli a) u providera
sootvetstvuyushie oborudovanie (_ne_ takie zhe modemy) votknuto cifroi
v ih CO; b) mezhdu ih i mestnoi CO net nikakih preobrazovanii
cifrovogo signala. Sm. USRnyi white paper.
>NS
Dima
Nikolay G. Shulga
d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>>A chto kasaetsia vozmozhnosti povrezhdenij ot vozdushnogo shara, to ty menia opiat'
>>poveselil.
>
>Nu da, kakie uzh tam povrezhdeniya. Podumaesh, neskol'ko kubometrov
>vodoroda ebanut. Chto nam Hindenburg, tem bolee malen'kii takoi.
A razve etot shar s vodorodom byl? Sportsmeny-to letaut na goriachem vozdukhe.
Naskol'ko ia sebe predstavliau, vodorod vot so vremen Hindenburga i ne
upotrebliaetsia, imenno potomu chto uzh ochen' khorosho togda gorelo.
Da i helium'a zhe do figa v svobodnom mire. Eto vsio vprochem irrelevant -
ne govori ty mne chto etikh pridurkov ebalo kuda on tam upadet. Ili chto oni
znaut chto vodorod vzryvaetsia.
>
>>Ladno, ty luchshe skazhi, vot etot novyj standard na 56K baud dlia modemov -
>>eto sovsem tufta ili net? A to USR khochet za upgrade chto-to vrode $10 S&H,
>>a stoit ili net - neponiatno.
>
>Stoit sviazyvat'sa s etim tol'ko v tom sluchaem, esli a) u providera
>sootvetstvuyushie oborudovanie (_ne_ takie zhe modemy) votknuto cifroi
>v ih CO; b) mezhdu ih i mestnoi CO net nikakih preobrazovanii
>cifrovogo signala. Sm. USRnyi white paper.
Ia white paper primerno tak i ponial. To est' eto ne sovsem vran'e?
A u kogo vyjasniat' na predmet etikh vot a) i b)? I chto konkretno
sprashivat'?
>
>>NS
>
>Dima
>
--
Nikolay G. Shulga
Software Developer - STEP/IGES
Bentley Systems Inc.
690 Pennsylvania Drive
Exton PA 19341
(610) 458-2731 (voice)
(610) 458-1060 (fax)
Nikolay...@Bentley.com
Dima Volodin
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 18:02:49 CST, "Nikolay G. Shulga"
<Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>
>>>A chto kasaetsia vozmozhnosti povrezhdenij ot vozdushnogo shara, to ty menia opiat'
>>>poveselil.
>>
>>Nu da, kakie uzh tam povrezhdeniya. Podumaesh, neskol'ko kubometrov
>>vodoroda ebanut. Chto nam Hindenburg, tem bolee malen'kii takoi.
>
>A razve etot shar s vodorodom byl? Sportsmeny-to letaut na goriachem vozdukhe.
>Naskol'ko ia sebe predstavliau, vodorod vot so vremen Hindenburga i ne
>upotrebliaetsia, imenno potomu chto uzh ochen' khorosho togda gorelo.
Est' "hot air balloons", est' "gas balloons". Tot, kotoryi sbili, byl
"gas balloon", chto znachit, chto on byl ili gelievyi, ili vodorodnyi.
Navernoe, vsio-taki, gelievyi, no hren ego znaet.
>Da i helium'a zhe do figa v svobodnom mire. Eto vsio vprochem irrelevant -
>ne govori ty mne chto etikh pridurkov ebalo kuda on tam upadet. Ili chto oni
>znaut chto vodorod vzryvaetsia.
Zenitchikam - ono vidnee.
>>>Ladno, ty luchshe skazhi, vot etot novyj standard na 56K baud dlia modemov -
>>>eto sovsem tufta ili net? A to USR khochet za upgrade chto-to vrode $10 S&H,
>>>a stoit ili net - neponiatno.
>>
>>Stoit sviazyvat'sa s etim tol'ko v tom sluchaem, esli a) u providera
>>sootvetstvuyushie oborudovanie (_ne_ takie zhe modemy) votknuto cifroi
>>v ih CO; b) mezhdu ih i mestnoi CO net nikakih preobrazovanii
>>cifrovogo signala. Sm. USRnyi white paper.
>
>Ia white paper primerno tak i ponial. To est' eto ne sovsem vran'e?
>A u kogo vyjasniat' na predmet etikh vot a) i b)? I chto konkretno
>sprashivat'?
U provaidera(-ov) svoego(-ih), natural'no. Pro b), oni, skoree vsego,
sami ne znayut (esli oni sami ne Baby Bell), no mogut vyasnit'. Mozhno
i u Baby Bell napriamuyu vyasnit'.
>Nikolay G. Shulga
Dima
Nikolay G. Shulga
sa...@dragon.whoi.edu (sasha) wrote:
<...>
>naveli menya na staruyu mysl' ob odnorodnosti armeiskih poryadkov.
Nu da, no zdes' vsio-taki prikladom v mordu za tak ne zasvetiat, da i kakoj
normal'nyj chelovek budet zdes' tratit' vremia na sluzhbu v armii.
No raz uzh poshla takaja p'janka...
Est' takoj standard for CAD data exchange - IGES. US Army (da i Navy) ego
strashno lubiat. Nastol'ko lubiat, chto u nikh svoija versia est' - CALS something
or other. Versia, kstati, ne takaja plokhaja - u japoncev khuzhe.
Nu i do poslednego vremeni byl u nikh muzhik, kotoryj testirovaniem zanimalsia.
I na conferencii privozil otchety. Moj lubimyj otchet zvuchal primerno tak:
- Vot, eta, zapakovali my lenty (reel tape, bylo eto goda 4 nazad) i poslali
ee s odnoj aviabazy v druguiu.
- Po raspakovanii vyjasnilos', chto zapakovano ne po standartu.
- Popytalis' prochitat' (prilozheny raspechatki, chitali tar'om i cpio).
- Ne poluchilos'.
- Nu i khren s nim, vsio ravno na nej nichego i ne bylo (raspechatka prilagaetsia)
- no zapakovano bylo vsio ravno nepravil'no. Ne nado tak zapakovyvat'
Ej-Bogu ne vru. Interesno chto IGES-to etot muzhik snaet, no vot podi zh ty...
Nu, potom takoj otchet sekretilsia na dva goda - soglasno ustavA. Potom
rassecrechivalsia - Freedom Of Information Act. I privozilsia na conferencii.
U menia gde-to kopia lezhit.
A sejchas, chto, sobstvenno, samoe smeshnoe, u etogo muzhika svoja kompania -
on teper' eti otchety dlia Army and Navy za den'gi pishet. I, pokhozhe, ne hilye.
Vo. A vy govorite - Belorussia...
NS
Nikolay G. Shulga
d...@dvv.ru (Dima Volodin) wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 09:05:42 CST, "Nikolay G. Shulga">><...>
>>>Da, luchshe dozhat'sa, kogda on nakrutitsa na tarelku PVO ili prosto
>>>na LEP prisiadet.
>>
>
>Tak poimeli dva trupa, a inache - bog znaet, skol'ko trupov moglo by
>poluchitsa.
Ot vozdushnogo shara? Ne, nu ty sovsem s duba rukhnul. Ty esche skazhi
chto etot shar na Minsk padal. Ili chto etim vojakam eto ne vsio ravno bylo.
>
>>Slushaj, a chto takoe tarelka PVO? Ni razu ne videl (nu krome kak v
>>stolovoj v/ch 28036 'ja')
>
>A dlia menia vsio, chto napravlenno izlucahet i prinimaet radiosignal
>- tarelki.
Chego tam v samom dele melochit'sia.
>Kak eto v v/ch 28036 'ja' nazyvalos' - yasnoe delo, cho
>tem, kto tam pitalsia, vidnee.
Nu, s vidu izluchatel' ot C-125 skoree na 2 containera iz kitajskogo restorana
pokhozh... ili na toschij takoj penis s treugol'nymi jajcami neverojatnykh
razmerov, vsia konstrukcia vverkh nogami. U poslednikh radarov voobsche
antenna stacionarnaja, vot SS-boy tebe objasnit pro fazirovannye reshetki.
A chto kasaetsia vozmozhnosti povrezhdenij ot vozdushnogo shara, to ty menia opiat'
poveselil.
Ladno, ty luchshe skazhi, vot etot novyj standard na 56K baud dlia modemov -
eto sovsem tufta ili net? A to USR khochet za upgrade chto-to vrode $10 S&H,
a stoit ili net - neponiatno.
NS
sasha
"Nikolay G. Shulga" <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>Ochen' trudno, zhalovalsia mne znakomyj, bylo pape ob'jasnit'
>chto ne nado srazu kazhdogo pervogo prikladom po morde...
Vot tol'ko interesno, nablyudaetsya li u nuh tut edinstvo teorii i
praktiki. Ponyatno, chto papa prochital manual, gde yasno zapisano,
chto civilian, zabredshii na ob'ekt, dolzhen byt' zaderzhan, a ne
ot*izzhen i t.d. i ohotno podelilsya znaniyami s kollegami. A na dele?
Pokazannye nedavno po TV kadry (o prazdnovanii 10-go pryzhka s
parashyutom putem pribivaniya znachka k organizmu; a esche ran'she ya
videl kadry o tom kak v nekom desantnom batal'one novichkov vo vremya
propiski zastavlyali sobstvennoe govno zhrat' - takogo ya dazhe v
sovke ne slyhal) naveli menya na staruyu mysl' ob odnorodnosti
armeiskih poryadkov. Piramidal'naya struktura, nichego ne popishesh'.
Fuck rasprostranyaetsya sverhu vniz, poka ne dostignet nizhnego
urovnya.
Da, konechno, na Zapade neskol'ko bol'she obratnyh svyazei, bokovoi
veter so storony pressy, vidimo, ne daet doiti do poslednih stepenei,
no v obschem i tselom - ta zhe zhopa. Nu, ubivat' ne za ponyuh
bezvinnogo prohozhego (proletayuschego) ne stanut, a v ostal'nom,
boyus', vse to zhe.
Sasha
Simcha Streltsov
sasha (sa...@dragon.whoi.edu) wrote:
: no v obschem i tselom - ta zhe zhopa. Nu, ubivat' ne za ponyuh
: bezvinnogo prohozhego (proletayuschego) ne stanut, a v ostal'nom,
: boyus', vse to zhe.
that alone can make a lot of difference for some people.
as to the army manners -
can you estimate a probability of something like, say,
a drunken party in a hotel for 100 ppl to become publicly known?
would we agree on, say, at least 1%?
say, there are 5 Tailhooks reported per year.
that will make estimate 500 parties per year involving 50,000 ppl
with, say, 1 mln ppl in/around the army it is 2% of the army.
that would contrast probably 90+% in Russian army.
the number above are taken from nowhere, so if someone
wants to constitute a better estimate - be my guest
Senya
Dima Volodin
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:03:44 CST, sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov)
wrote:
>
>the number above are taken from nowhere, so if someone
>wants to constitute a better estimate - be my guest
Klass. "Ya vysosal iz pal'ca neizvestno chego, a teper' vysosite iz
pal'ca luchshe, chem ya."
>Senya
Dima
Andrew Mirzoev
> >belarusam i sovkam voobcshe (KAL-007) - prosche streliat',
>
> Naschet KAL007 ty voobsche zalepil gorbatogo. Eto otdel'nyj vopros chto on tam delal,
> a vot kak ego sbivali - eto voobsche cirk. Esli by eti mudaki ego vovremia
> zasekli, to 10 raz uspeli by razobrat'sia. A tak on uzhe ukhodil i nado bylo prikryvat' sebe
> zhopy. Plus oni vse s perepoja byli - kakoj-to tam den' krasnoj zhopy byl nakanune.
>
>
na amerikanskom esmince - vybor prost - ne sobyesh - nakazhut
(uvolyat:). Glavnoe, chto ludi v samolete ne "svoi". Chego o "chuzhikh"
trupah bespokoitsya...
Regards
Andrew
from another London
> NS
sasha
"Nikolay G. Shulga" <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>Nu da, no zdes' vsio-taki prikladom v mordu za tak ne zasvetiat, da i kakoj
>normal'nyj chelovek budet zdes' tratit' vremia na sluzhbu v armii.
>
Ne znayu. Kakoi normal'nyj chelovek budet *tam* tratit' vremia na
sluzhbu v armii? Na etot vopros otvet izvesten. A zdes' - ne znayu.
Mogut byt' varianty.
>No raz uzh poshla takaja p'janka...
"Forrest Gump" videli? "You're a genius, Gump!"
Sasha
Nikolay G. Shulga
sa...@dragon.whoi.edu (sasha) wrote:
>
>"Nikolay G. Shulga" <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>
>>Nu da, no zdes' vsio-taki prikladom v mordu za tak ne zasvetiat, da i kakoj
>>normal'nyj chelovek budet zdes' tratit' vremia na sluzhbu v armii.
>>
>
>Ne znayu. Kakoi normal'nyj chelovek budet *tam* tratit' vremia na
>sluzhbu v armii?
Nu, skazhem, student Leningradskogo Politekha, kotoryj
prishel v avguste '82-go v institut s voennoj kafedroj,
a v sentiabre bronu otmenili. Dlia spravedlivosti, kak
marshal oborony ob'jasnil. A kafedru zachem-to ostavili.
Ili studenty provincial'nykh vuzov, komu v VUZ s voennoj
kafedorj bylo ne projti, i lapy v medkomissii ne bylo.
Zdes' - mne eto trudno poniat', no idut dobrovol'no...
Net, Gump ne smotrel. Gasheka chital. Bez nego v luboj
armii hana.
NS
sasha
"Nikolay G. Shulga" <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>Nu, skazhem, student Leningradskogo Politekha, kotoryj
>prishel v avguste '82-go v institut s voennoj kafedroj,
>a v sentiabre bronu otmenili.
Ya, konechno, imel v vidu professional'nuyu sluzhbu. Hotya, i tam
byvayut isklyucheniya. Ya na voennyh sborah poznakomilsya s odnim
bedolagoi. Vypusknik fizfaka LGU, ego zamanili na sluzhbu, poobeschav,
chto cherez dva goda dadut vozmozhnost' postupit' v voennuyu
akademiyu, posle chego, yakoby, i polugrazhdanskaya zhizn', i kar'era
s zarplatoi, i kakaya-to nauka. Vse by nichego, no nachal'nik chasti
ego zayavlenie ne podpisal. Tak on i ostalsya meteobatareei
komandovat'. Odin normal'nyi chelovek na vsyu chast'. Kak vspomnyu -
vzdrognu. Kakie tam byli exemplyary, bozhe moi ...
>Zdes' - mne eto trudno poniat', no idut dobrovol'no...
Nu, ne tak uzh i trudno. Garantirovannoe trudoustroisvo poka ne
posineesh', ofigennye benefity, pensiya-schmensiya i t.d.
>Net, Gump ne smotrel.
Posmotrite pri sluchae. Eto ne bog vest' chto, no udovol'stvie
poluchite.
Sasha
Nicolai Kitanine
In article <SASHA.97F...@dragon.whoi.edu>, sa...@dragon.whoi.edu (sasha) writes:
> Ya, konechno, imel v vidu professional'nuyu sluzhbu. Hotya, i tam
> byvayut isklyucheniya. Ya na voennyh sborah poznakomilsya s odnim
> bedolagoi. Vypusknik fizfaka LGU, ego zamanili na sluzhbu, poobeschav,
> chto cherez dva goda dadut vozmozhnost' postupit' v voennuyu
> akademiyu, posle chego, yakoby, i polugrazhdanskaya zhizn', i kar'era
> s zarplatoi, i kakaya-to nauka. Vse by nichego, no nachal'nik chasti
> ego zayavlenie ne podpisal. Tak on i ostalsya meteobatareei
> komandovat'. Odin normal'nyi chelovek na vsyu chast'. Kak vspomnyu -
> vzdrognu. Kakie tam byli exemplyary, bozhe moi ...
>
na sborah) ja odnogo takogo tipa videl. Tozhe s fizfaka. Vid imel mnogokratno
bitoj sobaki. Pravda prichin ja vyjasnyat' ne stal, bol'no uzh on neschastnyj byl...
>
> Sasha
>
Kolya
Nikolay G. Shulga
sa...@dragon.whoi.edu (sasha) wrote:
>
>"Nikolay G. Shulga" <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>
>>Nu, skazhem, student Leningradskogo Politekha, kotoryj
>>prishel v avguste '82-go v institut s voennoj kafedroj,
>>a v sentiabre bronu otmenili.
>
>byvayut isklyucheniya. Ya na voennyh sborah poznakomilsya s odnim
>bedolagoi. Vypusknik fizfaka LGU, ego zamanili na sluzhbu, poobeschav,
>chto cherez dva goda dadut vozmozhnost' postupit' v voennuyu
>akademiyu, posle chego, yakoby, i polugrazhdanskaya zhizn', i kar'era
>s zarplatoi, i kakaya-to nauka. Vse by nichego, no nachal'nik chasti
>ego zayavlenie ne podpisal. Tak on i ostalsya meteobatareei
>komandovat'.
"Who trades his freedom for bread - loses both". Dumat' nado bylo,
pod kogo lozhit'sia.
Videl ia (izdali, slava B-gu) eti polugrazhdanskie chasti. P/k VDV
komanduet vzvodom programmistov. Po prikhodu na dolzhnost' tot p/k
uchinil SCCS v vide bol'shoj takoj tetradi. Strochku izmenil - zanesi
v protokol. I raspishis'. What's the English for "Lishnie znania
duraku tol'ko vrediat"? "Drink deep..." slishkom intelligentno.
NS
sasha
"Nikolay G. Shulga" <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>"Who trades his freedom for bread - loses both". Dumat' nado bylo,
>pod kogo lozhit'sia.
S xlebom, ya dumayu, u nego vse bylo normal'no, a chto sam vo vsem
vinovat - eto konechno.
Sasha
sasha
Nicolai....@ens-lyon.fr (Nicolai Kitanine) wrote:
>Eto ne v Kamenke sluchaem bylo? Tam tozhe (pri analogichnyh
>obstojatel'stvah, t.e. na sborah) ja odnogo takogo tipa videl. Tozhe
>s fizfaka.
Net eto bylo pod Lugoi (Len. oblasti), poselok Gorodische.
>Vid imel mnogokratno bitoj sobaki. Pravda prichin ja
>vyjasnyat' ne stal, bol'no uzh on neschastnyj byl...
U Vas pryamo amerikanskaya psihologiya :-)
Sasha
Alex Glotov
Nicolai Kitanine (Nicolai....@ens-lyon.fr) wrote:
>Ne zametit' vozdushnyj shar na radare mozhno tol'ko s ochen' bol'shogo
boduna: >On zhe medlenno polzet i pyatno nebos' neskol'ko minut na
indikatore torchalo da esche >nebos' merzkie zvuki by izdavalo (ja pravda
ne znaju kak eto proishodit v PVOshnyh >radarah). Reshenie zhe ob
unichtozhenii prinimajut ne "chuvaki za radarom", a >PVOshnoe nachal'stvo,
kotoroe obyazano bylo znat' o prolete sharov esli ne ot >MIDovskih
chinovnikov, to hotya by ot sobstvennoj razvedki. Esli ono znalo >i
prinyalo reshenie sbivat', to etih generalov nado sudit' za ubijstvo, esli
ne >znalo to gnat' za sluzhebnoe nesootvetstvie. > Kolya
nu ne znaju, kakie tam generaly sidjat na PVO-shnom punkte. kak ja sebe
eto predstavljaju, tam est' soldat i maksimum mayor. dalee, vidimo, oni
kontachat libo s raketoj, libo s aviaciej. shar konechno medlennyi
ob'ekt, no reshenija tem ne menee nado bystro prinimat', na to oni tam i
posazheny za moi babki.
cho-ta kogda ja tut granicu perezzhaju, tak gansy-pograncy i
tamozhenniki prjamo na ushi vstajut, ne govorja uzhe ob analogah iz UK.
a kak nekij zdorovennyj shar letit, tak pozhalujsta i nikakih tebe
predostorozhnostej.
kstati, eto MID-ovskie chinovniki objazany opoveschat' pograncov, a ne
naoborot.
Alex.
Alex Glotov
Nicolai Kitanine (Nicolai....@ens-lyon.fr) wrote:
>Eto ne v Kamenke sluchaem bylo? Tam tozhe (pri analogichnyh
obstojatel'stvah, t.e. >na sborah) ja odnogo takogo tipa videl. Tozhe s
fizfaka. Vid imel mnogokratno >bitoj sobaki. Pravda prichin ja
vyjasnyat' ne stal, bol'no uzh on neschastnyj byl... > >> >> Sasha >>
>Kolya
i ja tam byl! med-pivo pravda ne pil... :(
Alex
Nikolay G. Shulga
sa...@dragon.whoi.edu (sasha) wrote:
>
>Nicolai....@ens-lyon.fr (Nicolai Kitanine) wrote:
>
>>Eto ne v Kamenke sluchaem bylo? Tam tozhe (pri analogichnyh
>>obstojatel'stvah, t.e. na sborah) ja odnogo takogo tipa videl. Tozhe
>>s fizfaka.
>
Ek ego skrutilo. Ia dazhe v svoikh kommentariakh raskajalsia.
Uzh lusche by kamniami ego pobili, chto li - po Kosinovski.
Gorodishche - eto da. Zona bez stalkerov. Ia tam godu v '86
menial spirt (papa dal litr - papa u menia doktor) na car battery.
Strashnaja byla sitiacia - den' raketnykh vojsk i artillerii,
a v Lugu vodku ne zavezli. Za kanistry spirta mne by navernoe
raketovoz vmeste s raketoj otdali, da mne on ne nuzhen byl.
A battery byla nuzhna. Tak nam ee komandir divisiona (polkan)
privez na sluzhebnoj Volge, prichem bylo tak - polkan vel
svetskuu besedu s papoj, a batareu taschil prapor pod
komandovaniem starleja. Khuzhe vsego bylo pape - vesti svetskuu
besedu.
Vot griby tam, v Gorodische, khoroshie, tol'ko po nocham svetiatsia
- posle togo zhe '86-go.
NS
Nikolay G. Shulga
hedron!glo...@uunet.uu.net (Alex Glotov) wrote:
<...>
> nu ne znaju, kakie tam generaly sidjat na PVO-shnom punkte. kak ja sebe
>eto predstavljaju, tam est' soldat i maksimum mayor. dalee, vidimo, oni
>kontachat libo s raketoj, libo s aviaciej. shar konechno medlennyi
>ob'ekt, no reshenija tem ne menee nado bystro prinimat', na to oni tam i
>posazheny za moi babki.
Esli ja pravil'no pomnu...
Vsego v divisione ot 40 do 80 chelovek pri 7-12 oficerakh;
eto obsluga radara, stancii razvedki celi i puskovykh ustanovok.
Standardtnaja procedura v mirnoe vremia - po obnaruzhenii celi soobschit'
naverkh i sosediam. Esli vidno, chto eto F-kakoj-to, to v zavisimosti ot
obstojatel'sv reshenie na obstrel mozhet priniat' i dezhurnyj oficer;
esli i sob'esh', ni s kem osoboj apoplexii ne budet. Byl (davno) precendent
s dvumia Pakistanskimi F-15 kotorye proveli v sovetskom vozdushnom prostranstve
v obschej slozhnosti minut piat'. Esli cel' javno grazhdanskaja i nikuda ne
toropitsia, reshenie prinimaut naverkhu; kak pravilo posylaut chopper ili
samolet dlia razborki na meste.
NS
Nikolay G. Shulga
rq...@oes.amdahl.com (Roman Kostin) wrote:
>In article <5d89qj$q...@sun630.bentley.com>,
>Nikolay G. Shulga <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>>
>>pokhozh... ili na toschij takoj penis s treugol'nymi jajcami neverojatnykh
>>razmerov, vsia konstrukcia vverkh nogami.
>
Dlia osobo odarennykh povtoriau - vsia konstrukcia vverkh nogami.
Eto tebe ne tarakanov dressirovat'.
__
| \
__ | \
/_|_______| \
|_____|
__ __
/ || \
/ || \
| |__| |
|__________|
sasha
"Nikolay G. Shulga" <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>>Net eto bylo pod Lugoi (Len. oblasti), poselok Gorodische.
>Ek ego skrutilo. Ia dazhe v svoikh kommentariakh raskajalsia.
Da i voobsche takogo cheloveka mozhno pozhalet', dazhe esli i ne v
Gorodische. Odno delo esli mudel' kakoi-to, a tut sidit obychnyi
intel', kak ty i ya, tol'ko on svoyu oshibku uzhe sdelal, i znaet,
chto platit' budet vsyu zhizn', i ne prikidyvaetsya. V obschem, u
menya k etoi publike tozhe otnoshenie ochen' prohladnoe, no v dannom
konkretnom sluchae ya kak-to drognul. Grustno eto vse bylo.
Sasha
Nikolay G. Shulga
rq...@oes.amdahl.com (Roman Kostin) wrote:
<...>
>>Dlia osobo odarennykh povtoriau - vsia konstrukcia vverkh nogami.
>>Eto tebe ne tarakanov dressirovat'.
>
>"Copyright violation". To est', ya, konechno, v biblioteku kongressa ne
>zvonil i ne hodil po etomu povodu, no moyu zhe frazu mne zhe kidat' bez
>"(C) RK" nekrasivo. Ni huya blya nekrasivo (esli uzh rech' zashla o
>tarakanah).
Ia ne ponial - kakuu zhe frazu ty hochesh' poluchit' s "(C) RK"? I gde ona v
biblioteke kongressa? I prichem tut holodil'nik....
NS
Nikolay G. Shulga
rq...@oes.amdahl.com (Roman Kostin) wrote:
>In article <5df950$m...@sun630.bentley.com>,
>Nikolay G. Shulga <Nikolay...@Bentley.Com> wrote:
>>
>>biblioteke kongressa? I prichem tut holodil'nik....
>
>diskussii, nedeli tri nazad. Poetomu i ulichayu v kidanii moej zhe
>frazy mne.
Nu, frazy etu ia pervyj raz uslyshal godu edak v 78, i novoj ona i togda ne byla.
Tak chto otdokhni poka. Poka tvoj copyright tol'ko na tarakanakh. Ny, esche,
esli khochesh', mogu k matugam dobavliat': "ni huja (TM) RK, blia (C) RK."
NS