The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
? The Natural Philosopher wrote:
?? Michael A. Terrell wrote:
??
??? Sure, if you consider a strong drive to do what others won't, or
??? can't. Freedoms you never had in Europe. No overbearing and antiquated
??? royal families.
?? I always find it so amusing when a bunch of convicts, black sheep and
?? discarded gentry whose morals made them unacceptable in their own
?? country, plus a bunch of people who were either starving, or whose
?? religious attitudes were so uptight that they couldn't be tolerated ,
?? arrive in a place teeming with natural resources (and virtually empty
?? apart from a few asiatics, who treat them very nicely and help stop them
?? dying of stupidity), and then proceed to breed like rabbits, commit
?? genocide on the natives, rape the resources and turn it into the
?? tackiest example of vulgar ostentation since Eve discovered bling, have
?? the nerve to assert that the only thing they actually know, making
?? money, is somehow indicative of superior religious political and moral
?? standards.
??
?? Or that a tradition of racism, genocide and slavery is somehow liberating.
??
?? Oh well. It's all over now, baby blue. The resources have run out, and
?? china wants its cash back.
??
?? And those who confuse being in the right place at the right time with
?? innate superiority, are in for a rude awakening.
?
?
? More mindless ranting from the burnt out hippie alcoholic. You might
? as well stop setting followup-to: to alt.flame, asshole. I know you
? think you're smart, but you've burnt out too many neurons with the pot
? and other drugs.
At least I had some to burn out...


Not as much as anyone else here and it's all long gone, moron. This
is proven with your continued use of Followup-To: alt.flame when you
are the only one stupid enough to fall for it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

?
?
? I was trying to be polite.

Good lord. What came over you?


At least there is some hope for Imus to recover.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:47:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:25:24 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



wrote in message
...


Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
it
is today?

It didn't. Your taxes did.

There is no tax on aviation fuel, its some silly international agreement.

Sans taxes, fuel is almost the same price now as it was in the '60s. Look
it
up, instead of looking like the dumbass you are.

You need to take a remedial reading course.

Another idiot Europeon.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:18:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:26:51 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

But not with oil. He used white, dry, "lubricant". THat was when he was
funny.

He was drinking copious quantities of vodka in those days, and he
wasn't all that funny in person. In fact, he was quite rude and
unpleasant. His then wife, Harriet, however was a sweetheart, and some
of his friends were fun to be around.

I don't doubt you at all. That was the scuttlebutt around NY.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:45:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


" wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:25 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.


Teflon in his beer?

No beer. I believe his favorite was vodka and coke. It may have been Gin and
coke, but it's been 30 years since I listened regularly.


From the way he looks, it looks like he hasn't been 'regular' in 30
years. ;-)

He doesn't look a day older today than he did then.

" wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:45:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
? wrote:

?
" wrote:
??
?? On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:57:25 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
?? ? wrote:
??
?? ?
?? wrote:
?? ??
?? ?? On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
?? ?? ? wrote:
?? ??
?? ?? ?
?? ?? wrote:
?? ?? ??
?? ?? ?? On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
?? ?? ?? ? wrote:
?? ?? ??
?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?Phil Hobbs wrote:
?? ?? ?? ??
?? ?? ?? ?? Dave wrote:
?? ?? ?? ?? ? On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
?? ?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
?? ?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?? ? Fast it was, but poor design NO.
?? ?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? They spent wads of money to
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? very fuel inefficient.
?? ?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?? ? As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
?? ?? ?? ?? ? that environment.
?? ?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? That forced the fares so high that they weren't
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
?? ?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?? ? Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
?? ?? ?? ?? ? another continent and be home for tea.
?? ?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?? ? Dave
?? ?? ?? ?? Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.
?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?? ? Even their lightbulbs.
?? ?? ??
?? ?? ?? Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
?? ?? ?? Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
?? ?? ?? leaking oil!
?? ?? ??
?? ?? ?? Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
?? ?? ?? encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
?? ?? ?? headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
?? ?? ?? collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
?? ?? ?? out.
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ? One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)
?? ??
?? ?? He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? Teflon in his beer?
??
?? No beer. I believe his favorite was vodka and coke. It may have been Gin and
?? coke, but it's been 30 years since I listened regularly.
?
?
? From the way he looks, it looks like he hasn't been 'regular' in 30
?years. ;-)

He doesn't look a day older today than he did then.


Drinking formaldehyde has that effect on people.

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
10 years later, I tried to join again. I went to through the testing,
they wanted me so I went for the medical exam where I was told to bend
over. Well, the doctor looked up my backside and told me I was in
perfect health but I was too nearsighted.

He could tell you that from looking up your arse? That's one good
doctor...

;-)
--
Kenny

On 8/25/2010 3:44 AM, Kenny wrote:
In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
10 years later, I tried to join again. I went to through the testing,
they wanted me so I went for the medical exam where I was told to bend
over. Well, the doctor looked up my backside and told me I was in
perfect health but I was too nearsighted.

He could tell you that from looking up your arse? That's one good doctor...

;-)

Military physician, they had the latest diagnostic toys. 8-)

TDD

?
? I was given five medical 4F ratings and told I could never enlist.
? So, I started an industrial electronics repair business. Two years
? later they drafted me. I had to shut the doors when I left for basic.
? Then they tried to tell me I didn't know any electronics, but I tested
? out of the three year Broadcast Engineer course.

10 years later, I tried to join again. I went to through the testing,
they wanted me so I went for the medical exam where I was told to bend
over. Well, the doctor looked up my backside and told me I was in
perfect health but I was too nearsighted. I was deemed permanently
disqualified. Hell, I tried, which is more than most damn hippie freaks
did.


My vision was below 20/200 and 20/400 without my glasses when they
took me.

Umm .... anyone here ever heard of snipping an article like above?.

Means you don't have to keep scrolling down tru all the previous to get
to the latest comments?...
--
Tony Sayer

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they
weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).

The Concorde was not successful.

It was .. for what it did...


Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
but ego bloat.

Built here anyone;?..


How's your space agency doing? How do they like the US built
communications systems that i built?

We weren't big enough among other things to afford a space programme
which is no shame....
--
Tony Sayer

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.


Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...


So, where are his flying, today?



Well thats like saying where are Stevenson's locomotives working today
then;?.

Rather pointless...
--
Tony Sayer

What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...

The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
different class of aircraft.

We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....

You need to take a remedial reading course.

May I suggest you take the narrow bandwidth blinkers off;?...

You really do need a remedial reading course. ...or a brain.

Insult, if it makes you feel better or in someway superior;!...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

?
? I was given five medical 4F ratings and told I could never enlist.
? So, I started an industrial electronics repair business. Two years
? later they drafted me. I had to shut the doors when I left for basic.
? Then they tried to tell me I didn't know any electronics, but I tested
? out of the three year Broadcast Engineer course.

10 years later, I tried to join again. I went to through the testing,
they wanted me so I went for the medical exam where I was told to bend
over. Well, the doctor looked up my backside and told me I was in
perfect health but I was too nearsighted. I was deemed permanently
disqualified. Hell, I tried, which is more than most damn hippie freaks
did.


My vision was below 20/200 and 20/400 without my glasses when they
took me.

Umm .... anyone here ever heard of snipping an article like above?.

Means you don't have to keep scrolling down tru all the previous to get
to the latest comments?...


Buy a mouse with a scroll wheel. Or even better, a Griffin Powermate.

tony sayer wrote:

We weren't big enough among other things to afford a space programme
which is no shame....


Yet you criticize those who did.

tony sayer wrote:

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.


Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...


So, where are his flying, today?

Well thats like saying where are Stevenson's locomotives working today
then;?.

Rather pointless...


Yes, you are. Yet you keep trolling.

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

tony sayer wrote:

?
? I was given five medical 4F ratings and told I could never enlist.
? So, I started an industrial electronics repair business. Two years
? later they drafted me. I had to shut the doors when I left for basic.
? Then they tried to tell me I didn't know any electronics, but I tested
? out of the three year Broadcast Engineer course.

10 years later, I tried to join again. I went to through the testing,
they wanted me so I went for the medical exam where I was told to bend
over. Well, the doctor looked up my backside and told me I was in
perfect health but I was too nearsighted. I was deemed permanently
disqualified. Hell, I tried, which is more than most damn hippie freaks
did.


My vision was below 20/200 and 20/400 without my glasses when they
took me.

Umm .... anyone here ever heard of snipping an article like above?.

Means you don't have to keep scrolling down tru all the previous to get
to the latest comments?...


Buy a mouse with a scroll wheel. Or even better, a Griffin Powermate.

I have a scroll wheel and its giving me a bloody sore finger scrolling
so much just because some contributors can't be arsed to trim and
snip;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

tony sayer wrote:

We weren't big enough among other things to afford a space programme
which is no shame....


Yet you criticize those who did.

And where was there criticism?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

tony sayer wrote:

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--
apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due
to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.


Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...


So, where are his flying, today?

Well thats like saying where are Stevenson's locomotives working today
then;?.

Rather pointless...


Yes, you are. Yet you keep trolling.

You Sir are very welcome to have the last word on this one;!..

Over and out....
--
Tony Sayer

On 8/25/2010 4:20 AM, tony sayer wrote:
?
? I was given five medical 4F ratings and told I could never enlist.
? So, I started an industrial electronics repair business. Two years
? later they drafted me. I had to shut the doors when I left for basic.
? Then they tried to tell me I didn't know any electronics, but I tested
? out of the three year Broadcast Engineer course.

10 years later, I tried to join again. I went to through the testing,
they wanted me so I went for the medical exam where I was told to bend
over. Well, the doctor looked up my backside and told me I was in
perfect health but I was too nearsighted. I was deemed permanently
disqualified. Hell, I tried, which is more than most damn hippie freaks
did.


My vision was below 20/200 and 20/400 without my glasses when they
took me.

Umm .... anyone here ever heard of snipping an article like above?.

Means you don't have to keep scrolling down tru all the previous to get
to the latest comments?...

Well, we could top post! 8-)

TDD

On 8/25/2010 4:20 AM, tony sayer wrote:
Umm .... anyone here ever heard of snipping an article like above?.

Means you don't have to keep scrolling down tru all the previous to get
to the latest comments?...

It's my idiot filter.
If they're too lazy to edit, I can be to lazy to read their comment.

Jeff

tony sayer wrote:


I have a scroll wheel and its giving me a bloody sore finger scrolling
so much just because some contributors can't be arsed to trim and
snip;!...

What do you expect from draft dodgers..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

tony sayer wrote:


I have a scroll wheel and its giving me a bloody sore finger
scrolling so much just because some contributors can't be arsed to
trim and snip;!...

What do you expect from draft dodgers..

and what is now the best solder-free solder?



Kind regards

--
Daniel Mandic

See how much better it reads from the bottom up?

suggests that most people only write, never read.
lazy to edit attributions, that's epidemic, which
news readers to become effective. As for being too
probably be built into Forte Agent and other Usenet
automatically, but am too lazy to find it. It should
I once found an MS Word macro that would do this
to top post, but also start with the previous comment.
up and down would be difficult. So, my solution is
that if you were to read the entire article, going
Well, top posting sorta solves that problem, except

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:02:37 -0500, Jeffrey Angus
wrote:
On 8/25/2010 4:20 AM, tony sayer wrote:
Umm .... anyone here ever heard of snipping an article like above?.

Means you don't have to keep scrolling down tru all the previous to get
to the latest comments?...

It's my idiot filter.
If they're too lazy to edit, I can be to lazy to read their comment.

Jeff














--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

tony sayer wrote:

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

tony sayer wrote:

?
? I was given five medical 4F ratings and told I could never enlist.
? So, I started an industrial electronics repair business. Two years
? later they drafted me. I had to shut the doors when I left for basic.
? Then they tried to tell me I didn't know any electronics, but I tested
? out of the three year Broadcast Engineer course.

10 years later, I tried to join again. I went to through the testing,
they wanted me so I went for the medical exam where I was told to bend
over. Well, the doctor looked up my backside and told me I was in
perfect health but I was too nearsighted. I was deemed permanently
disqualified. Hell, I tried, which is more than most damn hippie freaks
did.


My vision was below 20/200 and 20/400 without my glasses when they
took me.

Umm .... anyone here ever heard of snipping an article like above?.

Means you don't have to keep scrolling down tru all the previous to get
to the latest comments?...


Buy a mouse with a scroll wheel. Or even better, a Griffin Powermate.

I have a scroll wheel and its giving me a bloody sore finger scrolling
so much just because some contributors can't be arsed to trim and
snip;!...


Then take a sledge hammer to the piece of junk.

Daniel Mandic wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

tony sayer wrote:


I have a scroll wheel and its giving me a bloody sore finger
scrolling so much just because some contributors can't be arsed to
trim and snip;!...

What do you expect from draft dodgers..

and what is now the best solder-free solder?


He's just showing his drunken ass, as usual.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:25:28 +0100, tony sayer wrote:


What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...

The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
different class of aircraft.

We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....

You need to take a remedial reading course.

May I suggest you take the narrow bandwidth blinkers off;?...

You really do need a remedial reading course. ...or a brain.

Insult, if it makes you feel better or in someway superior;!...

No insult; fact.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:10:58 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:51:21 -0500, "
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:18:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:26:51 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

But not with oil. He used white, dry, "lubricant". THat was when he was
funny.

He was drinking copious quantities of vodka in those days, and he
wasn't all that funny in person. In fact, he was quite rude and
unpleasant. His then wife, Harriet, however was a sweetheart, and some
of his friends were fun to be around.

I don't doubt you at all. That was the scuttlebutt around NY.

I think the cocaine was probably just to perk him up so he could drink
more. I didn't really like him very much, as he spent most of his time
scowling, and being very rude to everyone. The upside was that his
"posse" included some interesting and fun characters. Among them was a
fellow named Ben McGowan, who was in (Kawasaki Lets the Good Times
Roll) advertising. He was a real character, and always on board for
adventure. Another was a young and relatively unknown sports writer
named Mike Lupica. He's since become very well known.

IIRC, Mike Lupika was already a sports writer for the NY Post when he was on
IitM. He went up from there, but hardly an unknown in the NY area. I always
thought Charles McCord was the brains in the outfit. Imus was too stoned. I
remember the time he, on a break, went into the janitor's closet, thinking it
was the men's room. He was so blotto never knew any better. McCord had to go
find him. I think that's when he got the "opportunity" in Cleveland.

" wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:10:58 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:51:21 -0500, "
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:18:42 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:26:51 -0500, "
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

But not with oil. He used white, dry, "lubricant". THat was when he was
funny.

He was drinking copious quantities of vodka in those days, and he
wasn't all that funny in person. In fact, he was quite rude and
unpleasant. His then wife, Harriet, however was a sweetheart, and some
of his friends were fun to be around.

I don't doubt you at all. That was the scuttlebutt around NY.

I think the cocaine was probably just to perk him up so he could drink
more. I didn't really like him very much, as he spent most of his time
scowling, and being very rude to everyone. The upside was that his
"posse" included some interesting and fun characters. Among them was a
fellow named Ben McGowan, who was in (Kawasaki Lets the Good Times
Roll) advertising. He was a real character, and always on board for
adventure. Another was a young and relatively unknown sports writer
named Mike Lupica. He's since become very well known.

IIRC, Mike Lupika was already a sports writer for the NY Post when he was on
IitM. He went up from there, but hardly an unknown in the NY area. I always
thought Charles McCord was the brains in the outfit. Imus was too stoned. I
remember the time he, on a break, went into the janitor's closet, thinking it
was the men's room. He was so blotto never knew any better. McCord had to go
find him. I think that's when he got the "opportunity" in Cleveland.


The FCC is one thing, but you don't want to mess with the Janitor's
union!

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
10 years later, I tried to join again. I went to through the testing,
they wanted me so I went for the medical exam where I was told to bend
over. Well, the doctor looked up my backside and told me I was in
perfect health but I was too nearsighted. I was deemed permanently
disqualified. Hell, I tried, which is more than most damn hippie freaks
did.


My vision was below 20/200 and 20/400 without my glasses when they
took me.


Do you think that they made a short-sighted decision then ?

--
geoff

In message , Dave
writes
On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

geoff wrote:

That's a very good example of why most people with brains left Europe
for 'The new World'.

So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World?

Don't forget the jet engine

And the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they could get?


--
geoff

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).

The Concorde was not successful.

It was .. for what it did...


Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
but ego bloat.

Built here anyone;?..


How's your space agency doing? How do they like the US built
communications systems that i built?


All by yourself, big boi ?

or was that just the solder joints ?

--
geoff

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, (((°
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, zzzzzzzzzz
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

(((° wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Dave wrote:

On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

geoff wrote:

That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.

So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?


What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

You could say more or less the same comparing a ford fiesta and a rolls
royce

--
geoff

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes

(((° wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

aemeijers wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they
weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile
basis, it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully
loaded. In recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a
whole lotta 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in
'preservation pack' status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
for many routes. Now that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are
being brought back out of storage. At one point, they were gonna
modernize the 747 fleet, but it will probably never happen, because
Boeing would rather sell new planes, and Airbus is nipping at their
heels. But the long delays in the Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at
least partially blamed on the airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a lot
of money to keep airplanes with a lot of lifespan left sitting in the
desert. Another air disaster or major fuel cost spike, and there will
be multiple airlines going belly-up.
Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller with
the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing services.
A lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to. Plus, of
course, with the general economic downturn, there are a lot fewer
executives. Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
here on out.


Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
(waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't wait
another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save more
time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which goes
wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
solution (if you can call it that).

There was also a big outcry at the time about the pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.


Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Because falling out of the sky and killing people is not a vote winner


--
geoff

In message , Michael A.
Terrell writes

tony sayer wrote:

There was also a big outcry at the time about the
pollution--apparently
folks were worried about damage to the ozone layer or
something, due to
inefficient engines spewing crap in the stratosphere. I'm not sure
whether there was anything to that (there so often isn't, in the
environmentalist cosmos), but that and the sonic booms were what got
supersonic flight banned.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.


Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
landfills.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that...


So, where are his flying, today?

Well thats like saying where are Stevenson's locomotives working today
then;?.

Rather pointless...


Yes, you are. Yet you keep trolling.

Do you even know who Sir Frank Whittle was ?

(without sneaking off and looking it up in google, of course)

--
geoff

In message , tm
writes

"Phil Hobbs" wrote in message
...
Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)


Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.

'60 Enfield that DOESN'T leak


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , tm
writes

"Phil Hobbs" wrote in message
...
Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)


Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.

'60 Enfield that DOESN'T leak


What, you didn't put any oil in it?

tm



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:07 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, (((°
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, zzzzzzzzzz
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

(((° wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Dave wrote:

On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

geoff wrote:

That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.

So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?


What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

You could say more or less the same comparing a ford fiesta and a rolls
royce

I think you'll find that a Rolls will move more passenger-miles per hour than
a Ford Fiesta. ;-)

geoff wrote:
In message ,
writes
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, (((°
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, zzzzzzzzzz
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article ,
Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

(((° wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Dave wrote:

On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

geoff wrote:

That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.

So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior
technology as
they
could get?


What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950.
- and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they
weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

You could say more or less the same comparing a ford fiesta and a rolls
royce


A fully-loaded city bus and the RR would be a more meaningful
comparision/analogy.

--
aem sends...

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:07:35 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:07 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, (((°
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, zzzzzzzzzz
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

(((° wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Dave wrote:

On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

geoff wrote:

That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.

So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?


What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

You could say more or less the same comparing a ford fiesta and a rolls
royce

I think you'll find that a Rolls will move more passenger-miles per hour than
a Ford Fiesta. ;-)
But more passenger miles per hour per GALLON? Perhaps, but i somehow
doubt it, having actually driven and fed both. . . . . .

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:36:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:07:35 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:07 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, (((°
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, zzzzzzzzzz
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Michael A.
Terrell scribeth thus

(((° wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Dave wrote:

On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

geoff wrote:

That's a very good example of why most people with brains
left
Europe
for 'The new World'.

So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New
World? And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as
they
could get?


What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a
classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy
and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
airliner.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day

You could say more or less the same comparing a ford fiesta and a rolls
royce

I think you'll find that a Rolls will move more passenger-miles per hour than
a Ford Fiesta. ;-)
But more passenger miles per hour per GALLON? Perhaps, but i somehow
doubt it, having actually driven and fed both. . . . . .

The point was that his analogy sucks.