Lesson for the List #1 (RE: John Atkinson)

> > You just made my point.

Yes, you did. But in your typical manner, you fired off an inflammatory and
rude post with specious logic to support a point that I wasn't making rather
than inquire what the hell I was talking about and then blast me...

Boys and Girls who are new to the GZG list, lesson for the day:

John does not play well with others.

This is what everyone has been warning you about.

> Chain of Logic:

No, I didn't. Learn to read, and then read the posts.

> 5)I point out that in warzones civil aviation doesn't

That is correct.

> 7)I point out that this became the case once the USAF

If you could read, and had backthreaded, you wouldn't be asking this question.

> My point was that dogfighting isn't how

Nope. Don't have, don't want, and probably will never get one.

> Granted, in wars between shitty little tribal militias

My point is that you persist in applying a US/NATO-centric lens to your
discussion of the GZG universe. Your statement was actually:

"Not while we were shooting up the place. The militias in Bosnia did not
have an air-to-air capability."

You have the highly annoying and equally flawed habit of making the assumption
that if:

A) The US/NATO wasn't involved, it wasn't 'real'.
B) The US didn't build it, it wasn't any good. C) Somebody says something that
you don't understand or like, it must be a personal attack by some moronic
dickhead who obviously doesn't understand the crushing difficulties that you
face in you life, or the years of
hard-won experience, or the personal in-depth study you've made of the
matter (whatever it happens to be at any particular time).

Grow up for Christ's sake.

My point was that defining a 'warzone' as something that has to have a '1st
World Power' (whatever that means anymore) involved is somewhat ludicrous,
and certainly antithical to the GZG universe of multiple 2nd- and
3rd-World
Powers. The Balkan conflict's of the 90's were certainly wars, as was Afgani
conflict of the 80's (and they had less airpower than the Serbs or the Croats
did), as have been the multiple conflicts in Africa and Polynesia in the last
20 years. Or the conflicts of the Middle East in the past 20 or so years and
now.

> Bite me.

Put it right here in my hand John, right here in my hand...

> John

Now John, other than the fact that you are opinionated, rude, and generally
obnoxious. I do think that you have a fair amount of very valuable things to
say. I generally enjoy reading your posts, even if I don't agree 100% with
what you say. If you think back, I have been known to even (GASP) make
statements in support of one of your 'points of argument'. I don't hold any
particular animus towards you, and hope that begin taking yours meds again, or
stop drinking so much coffee, or get laid, or take an
anger-management
class, or-

I'll just stop now.

> --- David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:

> My point is that you persist in applying a

If _you_ could read and could backthread you would
notice that the discussion was of the Real World F-22
program, not the GZG universe.

> My point was that defining a 'warzone' as something

In a discussion of combat aviation, you pretty much have to restrict yourself
to theaters of conflict where there are combat aircraft involved.

> is somewhat ludicrous,

Unfortunately for your alleged point, we weren't discussing the GZG universe,
but the Real One.

<snip poorly thought-out personal attack>

I don't mind reading flames, but I'd prefer somewhat more original ones.

> I don't mind reading flames

I do. Offlist, guys.