From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:57:35 GMT

In article <lium16INN444@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>
>thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>
>>Are you interested in an honest discussion of the issue and the opinions of
>>those who have an intimate familiarity with close air support, or would you
>>rather just engage in a smartass contest to see who can post the cleverest
>>put-down?
>
>[...]
>
>>You may post all the cute little replies that your nubile mind can come up
>>with, but that won't change the laws of ordnance delivery as they now stand.
>
>
>Toby,
>
>What is it with you?  I've never seen anyone in the rec.aviation
>hierarchy who was so irascible and eager to take offense at nothing.
>First there was the "Dammit, knock it off!" incident during the thread
>about airplane aesthetics, in which you tried to shout someone down
>for posting his perfectly legitimate ideas about certain aircraft
>being better looking than others, and now this.
>
>If you interpreted Dan's comments as engaging in a "smartass contest to
>see who can post the cleverest put-down," then you have a chip on your
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>shoulder the size of Wyoming.  Dan mentioned what he feels is the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>apparent suitability of certain airplanes for the CAS role -- and
>considering the development of a turboprop-powered Mustang-based
>protoype for CAS/FAC back in the Seventies, I can't see that his ideas
>are completely without merit or precedent.
>
>Maybe you don't mean it that way, but you come across as someone who's
>mighty impressed with himself, with an ego as big as all outdoors, who
>feels he's doing the rest of us poor miserable wankers a tremendous
>favor by gracing us with his presence in this forum.  You have all the
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>delicate subtlety of a horny pitbull humping on an undefended thigh,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and you are out of line.
>
>While most of the readership is far from expert on the topic of
>military aviation, and few if any of us share your Vietnam combat
>experience <insert genuflection here>, what we share is a common interest
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in the subject, which is far more important.  I for one value your
>contributions tremendously, but I sure wish you'd learn to lighten up
>a bit and stop throwing your weight around like a schoolyard bully.  The
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>rec.aviation newsgroup hierarchy is for the most part refreshingly free
>of flames, and I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping it stays that way.
>
>Geoff


Boy, Geoff, you really put me in my place, didn't you?  The underlined
passages from your posting sort of prove my point about smartasses, wouldn't
you say?

The "Knock it off!" comment must have gone completely over your head.  "Knock
it off" is the radio call used to terminate an air-to-air engagement. After
fielding about a gazillion postings to the effect of "What gives you the right
to call the F-4 ugly, I was signalling it was time to stop the fight.

As for the last round, the whole thing started because I felt that the most
important consideration in CAS was being overlooked in the A-10 v F-16
discussion.  The talk was almost entirely centered on pilot survivability,
and that simply is not the most important part of the equation. If it was,
we wouldn't fly CAS until we had the perfect airplane, invulnerable and
flawlessly accurate.  And whatever Dan wants to plead about his response,
his reference to 'chain guns for that pesky armor' and 'making good war
surplus' were a bit too flippant for an old fart who takes close air support
rather seriously.

As for being out of line, nobody told me there was a line.  What is the line?
Don't step on any toes?  Don't respond in kind?  Don't ever tell anyone that
he's wrong?  Don't ever think that personal experience can conflict with
what's in the book?  I missed the posting on acceptable responses.

Larry Jewell once warned me about trying to be logical on USENET, and I
wouldn't listen.  See ya!

Sharkbait (Winchester and out of the fight), leaving rec.aviation.military
refreshingly free of flames.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military