Quote:

---

wolin made derrida go totally bonkers for a decade. wolin's books rule not for philosophical rigor, but because you can accuse people of being nazis.

skinheads are just rob longshots, the kids who couldn't climb all the way up the rope in elementary school gymclass because of their little t-rex arms, they listen to beavis/butthead metal or ska. meanwhile, the germans, who've spilled out across the rhine like clockwork since roman times to attack shit are total-pussies and engineer high-end cutlery and luxury sedans instead of v-2's and awesome battleships.

---

Quote:

---

Oh and dude, So right about the battleships...the BISMARCK was so ahead of its competition it scared the British Shitless such that 1/3 of the Royal Navy was chasing it towards the end, and the only reason it was sunk was a fluke lucky shot torpedoe hitting it in its rudder (which means another foot and the torpedoe would have MISSED entirely) The Bismarck had Radar (the first Ship to have it) and it had the first Computerized Fire-control system...It was the Mercedes Benz of Battleships...Battleships are cool...someone needs to film a porn flick on a Battleship

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Oh and dude, So right about the battleships...the BISMARCK was so ahead of its competition it scared the British Shitless such that 1/3 of the Royal Navy was chasing it towards the end, and the only reason it was sunk was a fluke lucky shot torpedoe hitting it in its rudder (which means another foot and the torpedoe would have MISSED entirely) The Bismarck had Radar (the first Ship to have it) and it had the first Computerized Fire-control system...It was the Mercedes Benz of Battleships...Battleships are cool...someone needs to film a porn flick on a Battleship

---

Possibly. But sea warfare had changed dramatically, even though no one yet knew it. A year or two later the Japanese themselves were utterly amazed at how easy it was to sink Repulse and Prince of Wales off the Malay coast. Only a few fanatical advocates of airpower believed that battleships could be sunk by planes (even though the ships didn't have aircover, I don't know that it would have made a terrible difference in the final outcome). Yamamoto had to scrap quite a few plans after the fall of Singapore since just about everything they believed about sea power was now mooted.

Battleships were on the way out: they cost so much damn money to make and could be sunk by 70 or so cheap planes with torpedoes or covering horizontal bombers. Even a superbattleship like Yamato wound up being a glorified headquarters for Combined Fleet on the Japanese side once they realized how comparatively defenseless battleships were and didn't fire its massive guns (except for land shelling at Guadalcanal) in a surface battle until the rest of the fleet was pretty much wiped out. Yamato's guns were I think the largest in the world at that point and they were barely fired during the war.

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely true, and damn boy, didnt know you were the military savant...

---

Quote:

---

the North Atlantic in early 1941 was a different tactical situation, because the Germans used single ships like the Bismarck to prowl the convoy/supply lanes, the british only had 2 or 3 bonafide carriers in the area, and their planes sucked ass (1920's Biplanes)

---

Quote:

---

How many people remember that it was HITLER who declared war on the United States, 4 days after pearl harbor? Many historians believe that had he NOT done this, it may have been another 6 months to a year (or more) before America DIRECTLY became enemies with the Krauts, which changes everything...

---

Quote:

---

This discussion of war is making me want to

---

Quote:

---

The Submarine Service accounted for about 55% of all Japanese tonnage sunk in the war. This was done by a branch of the Navy that accounted for about 1.6% of the Navy's wartime complement.

The Japanese lost 1,178 Merchant Ships sunk for a tonnage total of 5,053,491 tons. The Naval losses were 214 ships and submarines totaling 577,626 tons. A staggering five million, six hundred thirty one thousand, one hundred seventeen tons, (5,631,117 tons), 1,392 ships.

Japan ended the war with a bare 12% of her merchant fleet intact but not fuel at hand to run more than a few of them.
Source

---

Quote:

---

As much as the aircraft carrier revolutionized naval warfare(and it was a big revolution) it was the subs that brought Japan to its knees. Nothing got in or out of Japan. No raw materials in from asia and nothing left to go to the warfront without having to run a sub gauntlet. The amount of tonnage sunk is insane

Quote:

---

The Submarine Service accounted for about 55% of all Japanese tonnage sunk in the war. This was done by a branch of the Navy that accounted for about 1.6% of the Navy's wartime complement.

The Japanese lost 1,178 Merchant Ships sunk for a tonnage total of 5,053,491 tons. The Naval losses were 214 ships and submarines totaling 577,626 tons. A staggering five million, six hundred thirty one thousand, one hundred seventeen tons, (5,631,117 tons), 1,392 ships.

Japan ended the war with a bare 12% of her merchant fleet intact but not fuel at hand to run more than a few of them.
Source

---

You never knew you were under attack until the side of your ship exploded. Evan today, the bastards are extremely lethal and impossible to find.

---

Wasn't much of the pacific battle settled by over the horizon aircraft carrier action? Catching a carrier with no birds in the air pretty much spelled the end for the carrier.

And I remember there were battles where both sides lost up to 5 at a time, purely by air launched torpedos and bombs, without much sub action IIRC.

They used to be able to actually find the old diesel subs. Lots of crews died.


And yeah, German subs as well, all nations subs pretty much took a huge toll. Unlike a surface ship they could of course hide in shipping lanes.


I think US subs pretty much lead the world. Probably only French and English subs would be anywhere near a match. Russian subs are supposedly noisy as all hell, but they didn't have to be quiet because they had spies telling them where US subs where at all times.

If there is a major conventional conflict [state versus state] involving the US, its subs will just about win the war on their own. I don't think the Chinese have anything to match them.


Australian subs, the Collins Class, you can pick by the trail of oil, the constant emergency surfacing and the racket that sounds like 8 alley cats in a tiny room wearing large cymbals and loud-speakers doing the cha-cha. That's when they're allowed out to sea, or not being fixed, which isn't particuarly often.



Hello sailor!

Quote:

---

If there is a major conventional conflict [state versus state] involving the US, its subs will just about win the war on their own. I don't think the Chinese have anything to match them.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If there is a major conventional conflict [state versus state] involving the US, its subs will just about win the war on their own. I don't think the Chinese have anything to match them.

---

With that said, it is an equalizer to the Iran situation given that the Persian Gulf offers up a soft, sandy bed for a Boomer to nap easily upont for 6 months at at time. The brinksmanship between the US and Iran is especially provacative in this sense, and in these times. I'm familiar with Iranian immigrants to the U.S. who've intimated to me that the general Iranian population is far more agreeable to U.S. philosophies and positions than not. There are U.S boomers parked off of Iran right now, where they will remain until this mess is resolved, have not doubt about that. Of course, this security offers up an amazing amount of leeway for say, a dipshit American president to push his goofy-ass agenda, but I digress . . . .

China can make my disposable camera, Nike's, and mountain bike, but they ain't gonna do shit beyond that, just ask Pericles.

---

Quote:

---

the iranian naval fleet before porn-boards, IR stood for international relations, which is mostly about diplomatically killing those you dislike. let me help you understand some things better.


take a look at the range of the 154-missiles an ohio class sub carries. hitting any country in the middle-east is cake from the red sea, med, etc.

the persian gulf is a littoral operation, you don't put boomers in there because you don't need to--iran's got TWO submarines and sonar-tech two decades behind the hull-deadening stuff on our little fast subs that can still launch dozens of missiles and sink whatever it wants.

do you know what a thermocline is? look it up. the persian gulfs shallows and currents actually mean that it's MORE difficult to detect submarines with passive sonar. you REALLY want to use passive sonar instead of active.

basically, the ohios can lob thousands of missiles from total safety while an antiquated navy has no answer to lots of small subs with a bunch of missiles,torpedos and the ability to launch seal teams while underwater. they'll have to throw done mines which'll get swept fast. failing to localize and target stuff until it hits the inner ring(like a dozen or less miles) is a disaster, and you still want aircraft to do it, but you don't have enough of them and the skies are full of hostile and superior planes. so you're looking at dropping a bunch of VDS units into the water and blindly pinging around because their accuracy goes to shit in turbulent,coastal water and you have to use less-effective, very short-range stuff from your warships.
not pretty.


sub crashes? these days it's mostly china, russia, and banana-republics involved with aging boats or our cheapies with inexperienced crews, not ohios and la's.

---

I'm lost, so who are you dissing? Or just everyone? You should put some sort of explanatory precursor in your signature. "I hate you all" perhaps.

So are you saying the entire Iranian navy would be any sort of match for a US battle group? Very very unlikely. They'd be sunk before they left port. They'd be sunk before they thought about leaving port. They'd be sunk while they were having dinner the night before thinking "Should we leave port tomorrow?".

The greatest danger by far to any ship in the persian gulf is a small speedboat packed with explosives.

Well, if there are no boomers in the gulf then the US navy has been lieing, as have captains of said boomers. I would think having subs that have more firepower than your entire military sitting at the bottom of your local Iranian harbour would be a bit of a discouragement.

Its also about extra cautious protection of the various nationalities ships enforcing embargos etc in the persian gulf. Australia for example is there.

Now I'm not making this up. Maybe the US navy is.


I've read there are dozens of unreported sub collisions [with other subs, subterranean objects etc]. Only the one's that are complete fuck-ups and they have to report are generally made public. Hard to hide hitting a civilian vessell.

And hey, if you want to talk collisons with US subs, how about this?

USS Greenville. SSN 772. LA class. The LA class of course being nuclear. February 9, 2001.
http://starbulletin.com/2001/02/17/news/story1.html

Now that was with civilians aboard. You'd think they would have been more careful not less. Sure they were hot-dogging, but if the crews are so faultless, how the hell did they miss a dirty great jap 190 foot fishing boat?


Another one. USS Philadelphia. SSN 690. LA class. September 5 2005.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=19914

It managed to hit a cargo vessel.


I can find more if you like. And regardless of who's fault it is, you'd think you'd be reticent enough to stay a million miles away from any ship when you've got a billion dollar nuclear sub under your command.


Also, regarding "no US subs in Persian Gulf", again, that's not what the US navy says.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/.www/status.html

The Ronald Regan is in the Persian Gulf right now. And I'm pretty sure no Admiral sitting on the bridge of his carrier looking out upon his battle group would do so comfortably without having a sub lurking somewhere. In fact I think two attack submarines are the norm.

The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) left port 17 August 2000 for a scheduled six-month Western Pacific (WESTPAC) and Arabian Gulf deployment. The carrier was joined the following week off the coast of Southern California by Carrier Air Wing Fourteen. The carrier and nine-squadron air wing spent the majority of the deployment in the Arabian Gulf supporting Operation Southern Watch which included the enforcement of the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. The Abraham Lincoln Battle Group, under the command of Rear Adm. Phillip Balisle, was comprised of the carrier, which served as the command ship for the battle group, and eight other vessels. These ships include USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) and USS Shiloh (CG 67), both guided missile cruisers assigned to Cruiser Destroyer Group 3; destroyers USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60) and USS Fletcher (DD 992) and the fast frigate USS Crommelin (FFG 37), all assigned to Destroyer Squadron 31; the Los Angeles-class fast attack submarines USS Cheyenne (SSN 773) and USS Tuscon (SSN 770); and the supply ship and oiler, USS Camden (AOE 2).

Again I can find something more recent if you don't believe me.



Another example of subs in the gulf as part of a battle group.

http://navysite.de/ssn/ssn760.htm

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08760.htm

Electronic Technician 3rd Class Donny Scroggins, from Groton, CT, checks navigational charts aboard the nuclear powered fast attack submarine Annapolis (SSN-760) on Nov. 29, 1997. Annapolis is currently operating in the Persian Gulf as part of the aircraft carrier George Washington (CVN-73) battle group.


There is stuff all over the net about LA class subs being deployed in the gulf.



http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pnav/is_200209/ai_874688834

When asked what he thought the biggest challenge would be for Honolulu on deployment, Harris said that operating in the Persian Gulf is always a challenge.

"It's a pretty tough environment for the submarine to operate in," he said. "The water is very shallow there, less than 180 feet, and the submarine is over 300 feet long. So if you were to stand her up on its end, almost half of it would be out of the water."



Which is what I said in the first place.


So I hope james you're not posting from the belly of a boomer. Because you're way off course if you don't think you're in the Persian Gulf.

Might explain your recurring abscences. But then I know why.

Quote:

---

There's a mitigating factor to the sub situation: the Japanese Navy, being extremely rigid in all things, had shit for an anti-submarine service. From what I've read, there were two reasons:

1. Navy officers looked at it as extremely distasteful to escort civilian vessels--they all wanted to be Admiral Togo sailing into Tsushima in an epic, heroic battle to win the war. In any other country, they'd be told tough shit but senior officers had simultaneously cultivated and feared their underlings and relied on them for decision making far more than was healthy, and

2. Having been modeled after the British Navy circa 1910s, the Japanese Navy looked at submarine warfare as a purely military tool and thus didn't adapt until it was way too late.

From what I read, the escorts they organized had a couple of aging destoryers and cruisers mostly with overaged draftees on board, and weren't even put into service until 1943ish, at which point it was way too late. The strangulation by American subs would have happened anyway, because there's no way they could have matched the sheer number of steel ships the Americans could throw out there, but they probably could have held out much longer had they bothered with the above in 1941.

---

Quote:

---

while i admire your research, you're just corroborating that we've got a number of submarines, none of which being listed as "boomers" in the gulf. i already said that was the case.
ohios are boomers, LA's are the kid's size. the former is meant primarily to launch lots of missiles from long-range without the burden of engaging coastal aircraft, other subs, etc. LA's are the smaller submarines with the ability to fuck other subs and ships up as well as launch a bunch of missiles. i said small=in gulf, big=outside, the articles confirm it with no mention of "boomers". when we've launched missiles from them at the middle-east it's easier to do it from outside gulf waters and they're on a long-leash given the range of their missiles. again:i said, attack subs-in gulf, ohios as silos away from the action. you said: i'm going to research stuff that agrees with james then try to form an argument from it.

you said: collisions were frequent and an inherent problem with submarining shallow waters in wartime. you'd be wrong, there are tons of first-time crew going out there yearly and we've had no damaged subs, just some dead japanese fishermen in the way of stuff you DON"T DO in hostile waters, like decide to breach for the fuck of it. the subs in the gulf are staying down and as undetectable as possible in combat and either engaging or avoiding other vessels as hostile.

two minor scrapes screwing around during months at sea in peacetime in a decade with smaller submarines really says there ISN'T an issue with vulnerability to collision.

the serious submarine accidents of the last decade or so, as i said in my prior post don't include us, russia's got impressive designs and duct-tape for upkeep and everyone else has stuff technologically-comprable to the 60's-era subs. ours were bored kids drilling without paying attention and hot-dogging, that doesn't happen in war and the subs aren't coming up much.

---

Quote:

---

1)looking stuff up can make you look stoooopid if you don't pay attention. did you bother actually reading what "collision" was defined as in the 43 collisions article?

here's some of the specific "collisions" they refer to. i'm outraged at the government's classified program of ruining 2000-dollar fishing nets.

Aug. 28, 1988: Unidentified sub hooks anchor of fishing boat Sinaway Navy-paid $2,350. -
Jan. 4, 1989: Unidentified sub collides with fishing boat New Dawn. Case under investigation.
April 5, 1989: Unidentified sub breaks anchor of Canadian fishing boat Pearl E. Navy paid $1,712.
April 5, 1989: Unidentified sub damages net of fishing boat Nootka Mariner. Navy paid $2,350

April 17, 1989: Unidentified sub snags net of British fishing boat Laurel, towing smaller vessel for 15 minutes before crew cuts net free. Case under investigation.



Yes. collisions.

if you haven't noticed, microprocessors weren't that impressive if they existed in the 1980's, when your article ends. the newest subs don't use traditional periscopes and they've retrofitted navigation/electronical systems into the subs that are to the 80's equipment what the computer you're typing on is to a mac iic.

then there's the ruskies, we're not doing red october stuff all the time anymore, that risk's out of the mix.

2)SOURCES-you seem like a smart guy, go back to college, think about why one might be GARBAGE. be discerning, find credible ones instead ofsourcing the center for non-proliferation studies regarding nuclear submarines that launch nuclear-missiles. are you fucking kidding me? is there a tone to that article? is it not an archived nyt editorial?


it's frankly beneath me to argue with someone who posts links without examination and throws up a fucking UNSOURCED OP-ED piece from the fucking new york times as evidence of anything.

---

Quote:

---

C62 is ex-navy. jack's melb_matt's new name. m

---

Quote:

---

you're still wandering through shit because you looked stupid. you proudly declared 1900 dollars of torn fishing net as "collisions". semantics matter, terms need to be defined to make any progress. it's discrediting when one takes the kind of liberties you did with including "collide" with "net" when it's that far out of general usage. nobody reading this would associate the words and say " shit! i just collided with a net!" nets give way, ensnare, tangle--there's no collision there.

what you did was either careless or you assume you can pass-off data, that if carefully read would be absurdly-inflated. sure, 43 collisions looks great for you. the problem is, you've just stretched the semantical-boundries of things to the point where it's the same as writing off a hooker as a business expense.

i'm not interested in wondering about ther credibility of links on a porn-forum after the first few were either amatuerish or insulting in the assumption your reader would accept them without concern. either way, i don't argue with people who i'm going to keep on a leash with stretching data to definition because it looks the way they want.

---

Fuck, I just deleted my reply.

So, start again. Basically, if I hadn't have wanted you to read that article, I wouldn't have provided the link. I've been around long enough and had enough stupid arguments to know to never provide a link you don't want ppl to read.

Now in that article we have: Submarines collided with other Navy ships at least 28 times in the last six years, :he records showed. Those included five Collisions with other submarines, one with a destroyer and 15 with Navy tugboats.. So by my reckoning, that makes 28 out of 43.


Also: The Navy also released details of 13 collisions involving "objects." For example, U.S. subs collided twice with piers, twice with debris and twice with mooring buoys.. So that's some more.

Not to mention some of the "snags" resulted in civilian boats being dragged and / or sunk. So nets do matter. June 14, 1989: USS Houston snags towing cable and sinks commercial tugboat Barcona 10 miles off Long Beach. One crewman drowns, and two are rescued. Case under investigation. I'd be quite annoyed it the US navy snagged me and sunk my tub.

So either you didn't read the article properly, or yourself chose to deliberately misconstrue it. Which is not suprising considering the disproportionate effort you've put into all of this, as I say, based upon a non-existant premise, one you seem to have made up, triggered by some deep-seated desire.


And, basically, if you hadn't gone off in a tissy, making conclusions, putting words in my mouth etc, all without actually defining what "more that you would think" meant, then this wouldn't have dragged out forever.

So you've dragged this out all this time over a construct you didn't even bother to define or ask to be defined. I hope you don't design aircraft.


So why then are you defensive about the US navy there james? Makes me wonder. Nothing here is ever as it seems. Harvard educated management consultant IIRC. Uh huh. I'm beginning to wonder who else you may be. I have one strong suspision, and have some evidence. But I digress.


And I'm also darn ticked off I fired my ten man XPT fact checking team just last week. I mean *here* is where the creme de la creme of academia and intelligentsia gather. Posts are routinely front page articles in Nature and Science and Pidgeon Fanciers Digest.

That article you are getting so much wood over was simply a very quick google to back-up stuff I've already read, seen and heard previously. I had no idea it would form the cornerstone of my PhD thesis.



So next time, just for you, when I say "US president George W. Bush" I shall send my ten man team all expenses paid to the US to check the US equivalent of Hansard, recount all those pesky Florida votes, in fact all the votes, examine the nature of being to check that it is not just a false construction of the subconscious mind etc etc etc until you're well and truly satisfied.


Now would you like to argue infinately over something you constructed based upon things I never actually intimated, never mind said, or what?

Quote:

---

Goddamn, these Nazi Related Threads have staying power in the cage...

---

Quote:

---

I'm going to recommend the never mind approach. I am curious about your theory regarding james' identity, however.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Goddamn, these Nazi Related Threads have staying power in the cage...

---

says a lot about the people that frequent the cage

---

I'm too stooopid for my own good. It can be a deadly combination when coupled with mind-numbing boredom.


There's something so about fascism, and it just never goes away. Its always in season.

I feel an unexplained and sudden overwhelming urge to go visit Condie Rice, she's in the country, maybe I can convince her that there's some merit to heterosexuality. And having your arse pummelled relentlessly. The cost of chewed-up pillows would be astronomical though I fear.

Quote:

---

28 out of 43 means you're cruising towards the territory of x00% inflated-data dude.

if you'd mentioned you were defining "submarine-collision" to include damage you'd settle at small-claims over a ripped net which the sub doesn't flinch at, i think most would have a problem accepting it and the 43 number. failing to mention it was certainly convenient to your interests though.

who do you think i might be? just because you lose an argument doesn't mean there's a conspiracy-afloat dude. let it go, you'll win plenty more and lose plenty more in life, you just started at a disadvantage on this one and stretched some data out of laziness. i sit around looking for misrepresentations and distortions in documents and data all day, do it enough and you recognize it fast. i'm not infallible, but i care about the veracity and applicability of what you put in front of me. I've got an MALD from the fletcher school of law and diplomacy, half or more of the classes there are security-related.

c62's a primary-resource on this and i'll listen to whatever he has to say. i've got some fundamental-understanding of the topic and don't have to rely on google. the problem with google is you're going to get a bunch of repeated news stories lacking in scope, detail and followup, a bunch of biased sources like the op-ed you used, a bunch of sites lacking the credibility needed to be accepted by the un, academia, ngo's, ho's, bitches or whoever you submitted it to. then out of the top-25 returns, maybe 2-3 are worth looking at, but you'd need to spend some time there .

commercial fishing's one of the most dangerous jobs, submarines are about as much of a threat to fishermen as lightning or white sharks are to us.

the subs seem about as fazed by "colliding" with fishing nets as a rhino would be if you put a napkin on it's nose and towing a snagged tugboat a bit then breaking the line seems to be closer to hooking a killer-whale on a flyrod with your hands crazy-glued to the rod-the tugs are going to go for a ride, the giant thing with a nuclear-powerplant isn't going to suffer.

---

Quote:

---

All of which raises another question in my mind, why would clearly intelligent, and that is no pocket-pissing intended, its fairly obvious, ppl such as yourself and arab come here to rip-on ppl to the point their lives collapse? Have there been any XPT enduced deaths? I thought Knox was going to go over the [l]edge for a little while there.

---

Quote:

---

Like all of my people, I know nothing about military technology (our proficiency in war should make that clear enough) and the most advanced we get is strapping forty pounds of TNT to our balls and soliciting perverted Israeli homosexuals.

---

That's poetic because it's also, in addition to being funny, honest coming from someone like yourself. But, dude, dont sell your people short...assuming you include the Ottoman Empire when you say "your people", your military history isn't all that miserable...especially in comparison to other races/cultures supposedly "more advanced/sophisticated/developed" etc....At its Zenith, the Ottomans were badass motherfuckers...

And as far as Arab's so-called "Assisted Suicide" Posting against certain people, I look at myself as a prime example...Arab generally doesnt go after anyone who doesnt do something/say something to bring it on themself, and, as pissed off and frustrated as I was when he sent broadside after broadside into my "ironsides", I have to admit...I did deserve it to a large extent...I felt my contributions and overall shit I make to XPT should get me an excuse once in a while, but sadly, I went overboard with my handicapable references....and Arab was, as far as the cage is concerned, correct to shove it up my ass...It's one thing for me to talk about things like using my disability in a diabolical manner to elicit sympathy to fuck hott chicks, or events like the other day when a TOTALLY STONED chick wheeled my wheelchair into a heated in ground pool (), but those stories are exceptional and should only be brought out once in a great while. At some point, people must move on, become diverse in their post topics, or shut the fuck up.

As far as the direction of this thread, I simply wanted to get everyone to listen to the awesomely inspiring, war feverish German Marching song, Der Panzerlied, that you find in the first post way the fuck at the top, becaus eit fits well with the NAZI Whore thread (as much as anything does.......)

I do not know why ANYONE would take James on like Melb/jack has, without being 100% certain they know more than he does...I should know, I come from the same place as James, but you would never EVER find me going head to head with him...he is 10 years younger than myself (first off), and secondly, it's an unwritten code that graduates of H never vehemently argue in public on a board, especially a porn board (much like Doctors dont criticize each other in front of others, even if one totally desreves it...)

James is smart enough where, even if you are right, or DO KNOW more than he does, you wont win....the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep {(break even) ... What allows me to even talk is simply I am smart enough to Know that...

Quote:

---

But, dude, dont sell your people short...assuming you include the Ottoman Empire when you say "your people", your military history isn't all that miserable...

---

Quote:

---

it's an unwritten code that graduates of H never vehemently argue in public on a board, especially a porn board (much like Doctors dont criticize each other in front of others, even if one totally desreves it...)

---

Quote:

---

you're still wandering through shit because you looked stupid. you proudly declared 1900 dollars of torn fishing net as "collisions". semantics matter, terms need to be defined to make any progress. it's discrediting when one takes the kind of liberties you did with including "collide" with "net" when it's that far out of general usage. nobody reading this would associate the words and say " shit! i just collided with a net!" nets give way, ensnare, tangle--there's no collision there.

---

Quote:

---

i've got some fundamental-understanding of the topic and don't have to rely on google.

---

Quote:

---

Jack, are you ex-Navy? I seem to recall that someone else here--sorry, it was either c or toe--was ex-US Navy, which, to tie it to whores, was revealed when that whore that Monstar talked to wanted to quit porn to go to sea.

---

Quote:

---

Man, did you ever see the Syrian-to-Israeli ratio of downed jets during the Lebanon war? It's was like 200:0 (still top secret, supposedly, but in generalities it's pretty well known). There's only so much we can attribute to shitty Soviet technology...

---

I remember reading about the 1967 and 1973 air wars, along with the early 80's encounters (my Dad worked for Defense at Pratt & Whitney, where they made a large portion of the Turbo Fan engines for the F-15 & F-16s) and the combat results...The Defense Department projected during an encounter with the russians themselves that the two planes would have a 5 or 6 to 1 kill ratio, but we would LOSE some planes for sure. When I saw the Syrians (and Egyptians too) couldnt fucking shoot ANY down, it made me wonder "just how dedicated ARE these muslims...I mean hell if they all tried to crash their plane into one of the ZOG Flyers, essentially turning themselves into a missle, SOMEONE would have gotten a kill....whats interesting, the few Israeli planes shot down in most of their wars have been F-4s (vintage 1960s US) or French pieces of shit the Frogs sold them back in the late 1960s/early 1970s (like the APTLY named 'Mirage') when they were trying to compete for Israel's love against Uncle Sam, only to be told they smell really bad by the sweaty Rabbi-warriors in Tel Aviv...NO HOLOCAUST MAKING AMENDS FOR YOU FRENCH FAGGOTS!

Quote:

---

This is why all of us hate you Ivy Leaguers. Northwestern and University of Chicago have some minor alumni connections (at least more than University of Michigan, thank God) but you guys divide the world up between yourself and mock people like me and Gordon Gekko. Your education is a hate crime.

---

Quote:

---

all of those schools are the same, harvard's got two things going--name recognition and jack meyer's work. a 19-year old working at some cellphone-kiosk in utah recognizes versace-does that mean much? williams and amherst are better schools if you're talking about the word in the "a place bright kids go learn things" and that kid hasn't heard of them, but everyone at a top-25 school sure has.

jack meyer was the dude who just left managing the endowment to go out on his own when people freaked to learn some people under him were making like 8 million a year. mistake to fire anyone managing 27-billion dollars at an annual return of over 15%. that's sick. that guy singlehandedly dropped over ten billion dollars of free money for the school in the decade he managed the endowment. that pretty much means if the school realizes it's slipping in any area, they can go out and buy the faculty they want and build a fancy building for the department. it's kinda like watching the yankees in free-agency.

if you're acclimated to being around smart people, you figure out there are fifteenish places that produce the same talent and none of them stand out.

the clearasil-kid at the mall's seen good will hunting or whatever and will be impressed to the point he'd assume everyone who went there grasps quantum-mechanics and spent their college years in a blazer with elbow patches in libraries instead of throwing things out of windows at people walking to church on sunday morning because there was still too much cocaine left to consider anything else a good idea.

so dumb people know us and we can buy rockstars of academia and give them toys to play with and get them sweeter deals on whatever they publish. the playing field evens out in the real world.

---

Quote:

---

When we used to pull into ports in third world countries all the fishermen would throw their old nets over the side in front of us(we couldn't stop in time) knowing full well we would tear them up and then pay to replace them. The gulf of Thailand is full of fishing nets attached to buoys that fisherman leave out there and then return to haul them in weeks later. It can be a pain in the ass trying to conduct flight ops(keep the ship pointed into the wind) and dodge fishing nets. If there is an incident with a foriegn ship, they will ususally try to inflate the damages to get some free repairs paid/fixed.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, you have a very good fundamental-understanding of the topic. Your shit was dead on, almost scary, were you in? Where'd you get all that info?

Quote:

---

---