| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 107.1 | What the hell, everyone has one! | CSC32::SCHIMPF | | Sat Nov 26 1994 14:14 | 8 |
| Why not...!
Provides jobs, provides security, everyone else has one or two,
provide insentive..and esnures that the Spanish won't try and
screw with the Royal Navy again!
Sin-te-da
|
| 107.2 | | CALDEC::RAH | the truth is out there. | Sat Nov 26 1994 21:05 | 6 |
|
utterly foolish expense, they should have kept the Guards
and Gurkha regiments recentlyu stood down by the MoD.
a march-past of the hill men to the tune of their bands
would sooner stay an agressor.
|
| 107.3 | obscene waste of money | MASALA::GMCKEE | | Sun Nov 27 1994 06:57 | 7 |
|
re -2 .. creats jobs etc...
Couldn't the billions of tax collected pounds have been be used to create
even more jobs than were actually created by the Trident project.
|
| 107.4 | You are right, I was being ... | CSC32::SCHIMPF | | Sun Nov 27 1994 22:06 | 14 |
| Re- last one...
Yep...
But what the heck...Everyone needs another nuke...( sarcasm )
Look at the Billions and Billions that the US Govt. wastes,
but as I have been told many a time....I don't see the
BIG picture.....
Screw the big picture.... Could be real UGLY!!!
Sin-te-da
|
| 107.5 | Old maggie | BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM | Born to grep | Tue Nov 29 1994 05:12 | 9 |
| There is a secondary question. If the UK is to have nukes, why
trident? Why something guides by US controlled sat's. Why not the
original proposal of comparitivly cheap sea launched cruise? They are
even capable of conventional warhead delivery.
Old Maggie wanted to sit at the big table, bless her.
R. Michael.
|
| 107.6 | You're a threat to us ~/~ | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Tue Nov 29 1994 06:43 | 5 |
| Our brother Andy Krawiecki regards your nukes as a threat to the US.
If you don't launch them at us directly, you may sell them to someone
who will, or the IRA may steal them and hurl them at us.
What do you think of *that*?
|
| 107.7 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Tue Nov 29 1994 08:43 | 5 |
|
<----
Cranial-Rectal Inversion
|
| 107.8 | Do you take it back? | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Tue Nov 29 1994 08:45 | 2 |
| Andy, I think I reported your views quite accurately. What's your
problem?
|
| 107.9 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Tue Nov 29 1994 10:11 | 9 |
|
Evidently you have a problem with the word "feasible"...
Why don't you go and look it up?
If you go back and change your statement to "Andy thinks it's
feasible", then your inversion might diminish some ( I doubt it though,
as your rat-hole techniques are some of the best I've seen)
|
| 107.10 | Don't wuss out now, it's just getting interesting! | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Tue Nov 29 1994 10:25 | 1 |
| So you don't stand on your opinions, then, Andy? Never mind.
|
| 107.11 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Tue Nov 29 1994 10:34 | 11 |
|
First this:
> Don't wuss out now, it's just getting interesting!
Then this:
>So you don't stand on your opinions, then, Andy? Never mind.
The "never mind" musta come after he looked in the dictionary for
feasible.
|
| 107.12 | Not much of a reason, is it? | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Tue Nov 29 1994 10:40 | 12 |
| Listen, Andy, you cited the nuclear threat of South Africa as a reason
for increasing DoD funding. When I asked you about England and France,
you added them to the list. Now, when I point this out here, you wuss
out and say you only meant the threat was "feasible," as if you didn't
take it as a serious threat.
Maybe I wouldn't have to "rathole" so much if you wouldn't run down
that rathole when your statements are held up to scrutiny.
If you don't have the courage to see your views exposed here, don't try
using them as a justification for spending more tax monies on defense.
Don't waste my money *or* my time!
|
| 107.13 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Tue Nov 29 1994 10:55 | 37 |
| RE: .12
> Listen, Andy, you cited the nuclear threat of South Africa as a reason
> for increasing DoD funding. When I asked you about England and France,
> you added them to the list. Now, when I point this out here, you wuss
> out and say you only meant the threat was "feasible," as if you didn't
> take it as a serious threat.
I stated that, yes, S.A. can be considered a possible threat because
as far as I can see, they are NOT as stable as other "allies". Go back
and read what I inputed. I never stated that this should be a reason
for increasing DOD funding. I tried to show a possible threat... NEVER
did I say that spending should be increased!! You took it and flew with
it (as you usually do). I made an inference of plausibility. You
ASSUMED!!! You call me a "wuss" because I wouldn't play your game? get
real!!
> Maybe I wouldn't have to "rathole" so much if you wouldn't run down
> that rathole when your statements are held up to scrutiny.
Your "scrutiny" is shallow at best....
> If you don't have the courage to see your views exposed here, don't try
> using them as a justification for spending more tax monies on defense.
> Don't waste my money *or* my time!
What has courage got to do with this? My views "exposed"???? You
ASSUME again!! I don't really have the time to spend "defending" myself
in the box... If you want, we can get together face to face and I'll
rub your nose in your innuendo and rat-holing!!! Till then, why don't
you be like Meowski and pick up the "towel" you'll think you've won and
grow up a bit...
"don't waste my time"???? You give yourself much more credit (in your
own mind) than you're due...
|
| 107.14 | | CALDEC::RAH | the truth is out there. | Tue Nov 29 1994 11:23 | 3 |
|
wait till Mexico get the bombe. they'll want Texas and kaliph back
for sure.
|
| 107.15 | according to Lehrer | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Tue Nov 29 1994 11:29 | 3 |
|
and then there's Alabama to worry about too
|
| 107.16 | You're gonna rub my nose in it? | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Tue Nov 29 1994 11:35 | 1 |
| Gee, Andy, .13 sounds like a physical threat...
|
| 107.17 | | CALDEC::RAH | the truth is out there. | Tue Nov 29 1994 11:40 | 2 |
|
oh dear.
|
| 107.18 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Nov 29 1994 11:42 | 2 |
| <- don't worry, innuendo and opinion are intangables... You feel
a thing :-)
|
| 107.19 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Tue Nov 29 1994 11:48 | 19 |
|
RE: 16
> Gee, Andy, .13 sounds like a physical threat...
Only you Wordy.... only you would see it that way...
and they say conservatives are paranoid???
Tell you what Wordy..... you find a physical "innuendo" and a
physical "rat-hole"... and then I'll think of physically rubbing your
nose in it.... till then... grow up....
BTW... don't forget to check under your bed tonight for monsters...
|
| 107.20 | Foot fault | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Tue Nov 29 1994 12:25 | 1 |
| Anent .19: No, Andy, not only me.
|
| 107.21 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Tue Nov 29 1994 12:31 | 12 |
|
Fine... somebody else is paranoid besides you...
Somebody else doesn't know that innuendo and rat-hole are
intangibles...
So... grab your paranoid cronies and start hunting for them physical
innuendos and rat-holes... I'm sure y'all will come up with something!
When you do.... I'll be sure to rub their noses in it too!!!
|
| 107.22 | "Face to face" is physical | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Tue Nov 29 1994 13:04 | 1 |
| Try decaf.
|
| 107.23 | | AIMHI::SEIFERT | | Tue Nov 29 1994 13:05 | 2 |
| Now, now boys, be nice!
|
| 107.24 | No doubt a Wordy rat-hole is coming! | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Tue Nov 29 1994 13:11 | 12 |
| RE: .22
Try intelligence...
Even though it's a colloquialism, "In your face" can be considered
confrontational and possibly physical...
Face to face is exactly that.... person to person....
Oh but how silly of me!!! Now I'm back pedaling again!!
|
| 107.25 | How finely can you split that hair? | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Tue Nov 29 1994 13:16 | 2 |
| "In your face" is confrontational, but "face to face" is not?
Marvelous squirm!
|
| 107.26 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Less government, stupid! | Tue Nov 29 1994 13:41 | 20 |
|
RE: .25
>Marvelous squirm!
First he implies (asks?) that I physically threatened him. His
ignorance is dispelled(?) when shown that it could not have possibly
been physical due to the fact that "innuendo" and "rat-hole" have
absolutely no physcial connotation...
Then he suggests that a "face to face" meeting, which I suggested
because I wouldn't waste my time trying to get around exactly the
stuff he's pulling here, is "physical" and HIS "implication" is that
I'd box his ears (or at least rub his nose in his ears)
at that meeting...
and he has the nerve to tell me I'm squirming???
You truly have earned your monicker, Wordy....
|
| 107.27 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Nov 29 1994 13:49 | 2 |
| This is why we have note 16. You can move it there voluntarily or you
can take your chances.
|
| 107.28 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Memories..... | Tue Nov 29 1994 14:01 | 5 |
|
Well, he shouldn't worry about you boxin him or anything. You are a
Born Again Christian..... maybe that's what he is afraid of?
|
| 107.29 | How impartial of you! | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | grep this! | Tue Nov 29 1994 14:03 | 1 |
| RE: .27
|
| 107.30 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Nov 30 1994 11:10 | 23 |
| RE <<< Note 107.5 by BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM "Born to grep" >>>
> There is a secondary question. If the UK is to have nukes, why
> trident? Why something guides by US controlled sat's. Why not the
> original proposal of comparitivly cheap sea launched cruise? They are
> even capable of conventional warhead delivery.
The Trident is a good choice because it is such a superior weapon system.
The Trident submarine is the size of a cruiser and can operate in any part
of the world for long periods of time while being based close to home. That
removes the need for supporting expensive bases over seas.
As for the Trident missile controlled by those U.S. satellites, unlike other
submarine launched ballistic missiles the Trident is accurate to within a
few feet. And it's MERV capability makes it a devastating weapon.
Also having the Trident does not take away the ability of the U.K. to have
conventional cruise missiles for other purposes.
The Trident is one 1st class weapon system, why not pick that as your weapon
of choice?
George
|
| 107.31 | | CALDEC::RAH | the truth is out there. | Wed Nov 30 1994 12:05 | 2 |
|
pretty hard to get a BATF license for a Trident though..
|
| 107.32 | Easy 8^) | TNPUBS::JONG | Steve | Wed Nov 30 1994 12:11 | 17 |
| Don't capitalize the name and it'll go right through...
..............
. .
. .
. trident .
. . | /
. . \/_ /
. . ??? /
. . /
. . /
. . /
. . /
. . /
. .
..............
|
| 107.33 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Thu Dec 01 1994 16:42 | 1 |
| DOOM!
|