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

> > You just made my point.
> No, I didn't.

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:
> 1)I assert that the F-15 is the best aircraft flying.
> 2)Someone else claims this is only true when BVR kills
> are allowed.
> 3)I point out that BVR kills are allowed in a war
> zone.
> 4)You claim that this isn't the case because of civil
> aviation.

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

> 5)I point out that in warzones civil aviation doesn't
> fly.
> 6)You claim that this wasn't the case in Bosnia.

That is correct.

> 7)I point out that this became the case once the USAF
> got involved.
> You claim I made your point?	When did you join the
> discussion?

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

> My point was that dogfighting isn't how
> the USAF fights.  You counter with the comment that
> BVR kills didn't happen between Bosnian militias.  No
> shit--does this take a Military Science Degree to
> discover?

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

> Granted, in wars between shitty little tribal militias
> who have no military aviation of significance then
> civil aviation can fly uninterrupted.  But the USAF is
> not a shitty little tribal militia.  It defines the
> term "military aviation of significance"[1].	Therefor
> your statements are irrelevant.

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
> [1]Compared to every other nation's airforce it is
> either better or larger or both.

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