Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Models / November 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

history channle is full of sh.t..again

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 01:15 GMT
no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 02:43 GMT
> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.

...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
more than once for confusing the difference.

Signature

     - Rufus

someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 04:12 GMT
>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>
>....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
>more than once for confusing the difference.

i had even forgotten that. i suppose it could carry sidewinders....
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 05:10 GMT
>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
>> more than once for confusing the difference.
>>
> i had even forgotten that. i suppose it could carry sidewinders....

That still don't make it a "fighter"...even if I am an "ace" in the sim...

Signature

     - Rufus

someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT
>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>That still don't make it a "fighter"...even if I am an "ace" in the sim...

yep, i'm a legend in my own mind, too.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 05:25 GMT
>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
> yep, i'm a legend in my own mind, too.

I actually managed to not only shock the sim operator, but myself as
well...I'd had a running argument for years with one of our Harrier
drivers that I couldn't fly a Harrier - I insisted that I couldn't, and
he insisted that I could.

Of all the civvies that went to the sim with me that day, not only was I
the only one that shot something down, I was also the only one in the
group that didn't crash...everybody else flew into the dirt without even
being shot at.  "Oh, you can fly...well, we're gonna have to give you
something that shoots back"...

I even did good conventional landings, which is supposed to be the
"hardest" way to land the jet according to all the guys I knew that flew
them.

Signature

     - Rufus

Mark Bivens - 07 Nov 2007 08:22 GMT
> >>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
> >>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> "hardest" way to land the jet according to all the guys I knew that flew
> them.

I think the Fleet Air Arm pilots who flew Sea Harriers in the Falklands
found them to be a reasonable fighter.

Mark

Signature

remove "nospam" in replies!
Perth Western Australia

Enzo Matrix - 07 Nov 2007 16:52 GMT
>>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> I think the Fleet Air Arm pilots who flew Sea Harriers in the
> Falklands found them to be a reasonable fighter.

Interceptor.  The only gun kills were against relatively static targets such
as a C-130.  The Argentinian combat aircraft were at the limit of their
range and so couldn't afford the fuel that they would use by engaging in
combat.

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 19:37 GMT
>>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Mark

Specific instance...I still don't think of the jet as a "fighter".  It's
an attacker.  Different mission.

But in fairness to the Fleet Air Arm, theirs was also a different jet
from a USMC Harrier.

Signature

     - Rufus

someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 17:04 GMT
>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>"hardest" way to land the jet according to all the guys I knew that flew
>them.

sounds like fun.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 19:46 GMT
>>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>
> sounds like fun.

Way fun.  The Col was po'd because they let me strafe a train...he'd
always wanted to do that and never had the chance - not even in the sim.
 He laughed through my whole debrief until I got to the part about
blowing the passes at the train after doing pop-up attacks on a ZSU.
Then he got jealous...

Signature

     - Rufus

someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 22:06 GMT
>>>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>blowing the passes at the train after doing pop-up attacks on a ZSU.
>Then he got jealous...

did you offer to teach him?
Rufus - 08 Nov 2007 01:45 GMT
>>>>>>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>>>>>>> ....it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>>
> did you offer to teach him?

Man, I screwed it up totally...and told him so.  And all he kept saying
was - "you got to strafe a TRAIN?!??"

That sim was/is way cool - total cockpit (all hte switches), complete
with a full closing canopy and windscreen, which is unusual for a
fighter sim.  And when you put your helmet on, there's a head tracker
that makes the full 3D color vision area follow your gaze, so it's full
viz anywhere on the dome.

I was locked into the HUD for about five minutes playing the "video
game", but it didn't take long before I was looking into turns, keeping
my head out of the cockpit, and flying the HUD around to where I was
looking instead of the other way round.  There's also air bladders and
strap looseners in the seat so when you "put the G on" you sink into the
seat and get some of that sensation as well...not the real thing, but
enough to fool you once you've been tricked into thinking you're "flying".

Signature

     - Rufus

someone@some.domain - 08 Nov 2007 02:54 GMT
>>>>>> In article <IMbYi.189199$Fc.162820@attbi_s21>, Rufus <not@home.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>seat and get some of that sensation as well...not the real thing, but
>enough to fool you once you've been tricked into thinking you're "flying".

too bad you can't grab one at best buy. what cracks me up is watching guys
twist and turn in their seats to follow onscree action that has no effect in
the real world.
i've done it myself blasting them green slime monsters from procyon ixx during
the refridgerator wars. zap!
Dave Williams - 07 Nov 2007 10:37 GMT
>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>
> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
> more than once for confusing the difference.

The Sea Harrier FA2 was mainly used as a fighter, but I still wouldn't
consider it one of the top ten.  Those History channel top ten shows are
always full of crap.

Dave
Enzo Matrix - 07 Nov 2007 17:31 GMT
>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The Sea Harrier FA2 was mainly used as a fighter, but I still wouldn't
> consider it one of the top ten.

Sea Harriers were used for fleet defence and as such were interceptors.  The
Harrier airframe was not a good fighter. It would bleed off energy far too
quickly.

During the 1980s, RAF tactics in Germany were to put up a four-ship package
of Harrier GR3s.  Three of the aircraft would carry a warload suitable for
the mission. The fourth was known as the "Stinger". This jet would carry a
single Winder on one outboard pylon with a Phimat chaff pod on the other.
The Stinger would be placed in a random position in the formation. His job
was to "protect" the others, but he was really only there as deterrence -
any attacking aircraft could never be sure which jet had the Winder.

The Stinger was always flown by an experienced pilot and the intention was
not for him to actually engage any threatening aircraft, but for him to put
himself into a threatening posture whenever an enemy fighter approached one
of his formation. This required a lot of discipline and so the job was given
to the more older. more experinced jockeys. This was explained to me once by
a very experienced Squadron Leader.  "The Jet [1] isn't a fighter," he said.
"But you can't tell these kids that. Give 'em a Winder and strap a bang seat
to their arse and they all think they're bloody Maverick. God forbid it
should ever come to the real thing, 'cos they'll try mixing it with a Mig
and they'll die. I wouldn't even mix it with a bloody Alpha Jet."

I asked him about VIFFing - Vectoring In Forward Flight, where the pilot
vectors the nozzles to allow the jet to stand still in the skies. He said
"Viffing is only good for airshows."  His argument was that in air combat
the way to survive is to keep your energy high. If you have low energy you
should always unload the aircraft (dive at a shallow angle which reduces the
load on the wings and allows speed to be regained) and disengage. He said
that viffing instantly gave the aircraft *zero* energy. It may get you out
of a tight spot with a single attacking fighter, but they always hunt in
pairs.  After the viff, you would be stationary and his wingman would waltz
right in and kill you. He was of the opinion that the wingman wouldn't even
need to use any weapons for the kill - a fast pass in afterburner would
produce enough turbulence to knock the Harrier off its exhaust column. There
was also a concern that viffing at high speed might actually tear some of
the older jets apart.

The Harrier's best survival methods were low-level concealment and
avoidance. This was practiced all the time. Three times a year we used to go
to "Deci" in Sardinia. Once was for Armament Practice Camp (APC) which
allowed extensive bombing and gunnery practice on the Capo Frasca range. The
other two times were for ACMI - air combat training on the Air Combat
Maneuvering Instrumentation range. The intention here was to let the kids
loose with a Harrier that had been stripped down to its lightest
configuration (no guns), fitted with a acquisition Winder and ACMI pod and
put them up against F-15s.  After four days of continually getting creamed
by real fighters, they learned that there was no way they would ever survive
such an encounter. They could then learn the real tactics of fighter
avoidance. At the start of the ACMI they considered a "kill" by one of their
side as a successful sortie. At the end of the detachment they considered a
sortie where none of their own was killed to be successful.

[1]  RAF Harrier pilots never referred to their mount by name. It was always
"The Jet".  The groundcrew nickname for a missile-armed jet was "Uhrwerk
Springen Haufen", which was German for "Clockwork Leaping Heap" - the
"clockwork" bit referring to the fact that it had a "side winder".  ;-)

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 20:08 GMT
>>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>>> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> was to "protect" the others, but he was really only there as deterrence -
> any attacking aircraft could never be sure which jet had the Winder.

"Soft kill"...yeah, makes sense.

> The Stinger was always flown by an experienced pilot and the intention was
> not for him to actually engage any threatening aircraft, but for him to put
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> should ever come to the real thing, 'cos they'll try mixing it with a Mig
> and they'll die. I wouldn't even mix it with a bloody Alpha Jet."

Most of the engagements I witnessed (Harrier on Harrier) while
controlling fights on the TACTS range in Yuma resulted in mutual kills.
 And that was in even fights.

> I asked him about VIFFing - Vectoring In Forward Flight, where the pilot
> vectors the nozzles to allow the jet to stand still in the skies. He said
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> was also a concern that viffing at high speed might actually tear some of
> the older jets apart.

Yup - VIFFing...fugeddaboudit.  The single most "useful" VIFF maneuver -
 a "flop", where the jet swaps ends instantly in the vertical -
actually requires departing the jet at ZERO airspeed, which is the LAST
thing a pilot would want to do during an engagement.  I watched while
one of my guys came close to losing one once...not pretty.  Alomost
thought I was going to have to call the trucks for the first time.
After it was over and he stopped breathing hard was reestablished in the
climb I got on the radio and said simply - "nice".  The only way
vectored thrust can have any real advantage during a fight is if it's
integrated with the flight controls, which it isn't in a Harrier.

Not to mention that the aircraft has VERY nasty pre-departure
characteristics under load - you can spike the G on at an eye-watering
rate by slamming the nozzles down, and the jet goes into wing rock and
heavy buffet...you lose most lateral control unless you slowly roll out
and relax the G at the same time, and you have to have presence of mind
to use the rudder and not the stick or you'll just aggravate it.  And
you're a grape while you're stuck doing that...

> The Harrier's best survival methods were low-level concealment and
> avoidance. This was practiced all the time. Three times a year we used to go
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> side as a successful sortie. At the end of the detachment they considered a
> sortie where none of their own was killed to be successful.

Best low-flyer out there - bar none.  And you don't know it's coming
until it's on you, if the jet isn't radar equipped.  Really lamented
sticking a radar on the front of the Marine jets.

I went on a night Red Flag once (A/G strikes only, A/A unopposed), where
during one sortie the trailer in the attack blew the snot out of
everything, but the leader bit it.  He knew that even before the range
scorer came in and asked, "where'd you like the body sent?"  Pretty
sobering.  Yeah - getting all your guys back is what counts.

> [1]  RAF Harrier pilots never referred to their mount by name. It was always
> "The Jet".  The groundcrew nickname for a missile-armed jet was "Uhrwerk
> Springen Haufen", which was German for "Clockwork Leaping Heap" - the
> "clockwork" bit referring to the fact that it had a "side winder".  ;-)

Funny...now that I think about it, most of my guys only referred to it
as "the jet", too...

Signature

     - Rufus

RobG - 08 Nov 2007 03:40 GMT
"Enzo Matrix" <enzo55@hotmail.com> wrote a whole pile of... stuff. About
Harriers.

More local colour from Enzo. It's why I keep on coming back...

Ta mate.

RobG
(The Aussie one)
someone@some.domain - 08 Nov 2007 04:00 GMT
>"Enzo Matrix" <enzo55@hotmail.com> wrote a whole pile of... stuff. About
>Harriers.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>RobG
>(The Aussie one)

enzo is definitley and edumacation. and funny.
RobG - 09 Nov 2007 08:18 GMT
> In article <13j51a856fv9n75@corp.supernews.com>, RobG
> <haha@happyland.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> enzo is definitley and edumacation. and funny.

Yes indeedy. And now I have to wonder what gems I missed while I was
internetless in the UK.

RobG
(Tha Aussie one)
someone@some.domain - 09 Nov 2007 15:51 GMT
>> In article <13j51a856fv9n75@corp.supernews.com>, RobG
>> <haha@happyland.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>RobG
>(Tha Aussie one)
i don't think this group is archived by google.
Bruce Probst - 11 Nov 2007 22:46 GMT
On Nov 10, 2:51 am, some...@some.domain wrote:

> i don't think this group is archived by google.

Actually, it is.

Bruce
Melbourne, Australia
someone@some.domain - 12 Nov 2007 15:02 GMT
>On Nov 10, 2:51 am, some...@some.domain wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Bruce
>Melbourne, Australia

good, that makes things easier.
Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 19:40 GMT
>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Dave

Yup...different from a USMC AV8B in that they had a radar and trained to
employing it much earlier than the US Marines did.

Signature

     - Rufus

Enzo Matrix - 07 Nov 2007 16:47 GMT
>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>
> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been
> smacked more than once for confusing the difference.

It's not even an attack aircraft.  It's a technology demonstrator with
pylons.

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Rufus - 07 Nov 2007 19:42 GMT
>>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been
>> smacked more than once for confusing the difference.
>
> It's not even an attack aircraft.  It's a technology demonstrator with
> pylons.

Heh...but it was still one of the best close air support aircraft ever
produced...until they stuck a radar on it.  A-10 being the best, IMO.

Signature

     - Rufus

Martin - 09 Nov 2007 15:00 GMT
>>...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
>>more than once for confusing the difference.

The F stands for fighter

I think a few Argentinians would disagree
Rufus - 10 Nov 2007 01:25 GMT
>>> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
>>> more than once for confusing the difference.
>
> The F stands for fighter
>
> I think a few Argentinians would disagree

...it's an "A"V8B..."A" stands for "Attack".

Signature

     - Rufus

Mad-Modeller - 11 Nov 2007 04:50 GMT
> >>> ...it's not even a fighter - it's an attack aircraft.  I've been smacked
> >>> more than once for confusing the difference.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> --
>       - Rufus

Unless it's an RN FA.2.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
tomcervo - 11 Nov 2007 06:17 GMT
"history channel is full of sh.t"

"Japan Surrenders"

"Madonna has a lot of boyfriends"
someone@some.domain - 11 Nov 2007 15:15 GMT
>"history channel is full of sh.t"
>
>"Japan Surrenders"
>
>"Madonna has a lot of boyfriends"

stating the obvious is intellectual masturbation.
Mad-Modeller - 12 Nov 2007 05:58 GMT
> >"history channel is full of sh.t"
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> stating the obvious is intellectual masturbation.

Hey, if Madonna comes to my place and wants to, err, you know, with me
my intellect will probably not be engaged.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
someone@some.domain - 12 Nov 2007 15:04 GMT
>> In article <1194761839.554093.47850@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, tomcervo
> <tomcervo@aol.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
if she opens her mouth with the fake accent, none of me will be either.
after cleaning out her wallet, i'll stuff her back in her limo and say seeya!
Martin - 14 Nov 2007 10:24 GMT
>>> The F stands for fighter
>>>
>>> I think a few Argentinians would disagree
>>
>>...it's an "A"V8B..."A" stands for "Attack".

FRS1

then

FA2
Rufus - 25 Nov 2007 20:29 GMT
>>>> The F stands for fighter
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> FA2

Different nation, different system?..to me, the first is "Fighter
Recon", and the second is "Fighter Attack".

But that's just a US take on it.

Signature

     - Rufus

Enzo Matrix - 25 Nov 2007 22:12 GMT
>>>>> The F stands for fighter
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> But that's just a US take on it.

The whole "F/A2" business was spin on the part of the UK Ministry of
Defence.  Since 1943, British military aircraft have had a consistent method
of designations. The first anomaly came in 1983 with the supply of a number
of ex-USN F-4J aircraft to bolster the air defence of the UK while a
squadron was deployed "down south" to the Falklands. By rights, they should
have been designated "Phantom F Mk.3". Instead, they were designated
"Phantom F-4J(UK)".

The next abomination came with that Sea Harrier F/A2 farrago.  The MoD noted
how glamorous the F/A-18 sounded and so they produced a designation that
matched it. They simply ignored how ridiculous it sounded - especially
considering that there was a perfectly viable designation available: FG
Mk.2.

The latest stupidity is with the Typhoon. Traditionally, the Mk1 version
reflects the *basic* role of the initial service version. By rights, the Mk1
version should have been the F Mk.1 single-seat fighter version. Sadly, the
aircraft is a pile of shite and the first version available for service was
the T-bird. So, the Mk1 version is the T Mk.1 - a *trainer* !  How sad!  :-(

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Rufus - 25 Nov 2007 23:08 GMT
>>>>>> The F stands for fighter
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> aircraft is a pile of shite and the first version available for service was
> the T-bird. So, the Mk1 version is the T Mk.1 - a *trainer* !  How sad!  :-(

Ok.  Now I get the whole "Mk.x" thing...and it makes more sense.

...but if you ecer want to know how "official" F/A is in the USA, try
leaving it off of your business cards sometime...man, did I catch crap
for that.

Signature

     - Rufus

Mad-Modeller - 26 Nov 2007 05:46 GMT
> >>>>>> The F stands for fighter
> >>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> --
>       - Rufus

Now I understand why you're such a stickler about that.  To me it's an
F-18.
Enzo, you can tell the MoD that they're possibly the only ones who
considered ex-USN Phantoms as F-4J(UK)s.  Most modellers I know refer to
them as Mk.3s. ;)

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Rufus - 26 Nov 2007 06:22 GMT
>>>>>>>> The F stands for fighter
>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

It all depends on who you're working with, or more likely which nation -
a Canadian officer once told me that their MoD can't make up it's mind
what to call them either - someone somewhere once decided that all CF
military aircraft should have 3 digit type/model/series numbers, so they
just tacked another "8" on the back of CF-18 to make it CF-188.  But if
you look through their pubs, it's referred to as BOTH CF-18 and CF-188,
depending on the pub.

Then there are nations that won't use "F/A" due to reasons of treaty -
they maintain diplomatic status of their airpower as defensive only, so
the "Attack" A in the designator is right out.  But if you're talking
about a US Navy Hornet, it's "F/A-18"...and that's official.

Modelers also invented the "bug" thing...I've never heard a US Naval
aviator refer to the jet as such.  They refer to them as Super and
"baby" Hornets.  But I did find out a bit ago that they call the Super
"Rhino" not due to the bump on the nose, but because it's big, gray, and
slower than a baby Hornet...

- Rufus
Bruce Burden - 07 Nov 2007 04:11 GMT
: no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.

    "The Military Channel" is so bankrupt for ideas that they
  did a "let the viewers choose the 10 best post-WWII weapons"
  show.

    I did not bother to watch.

    On the other hand, History International did a very nice
  show on the building of the Alcan highway, with interviews of
  a handful of vets (including, surprisingly enough, a couple of
  vets of the black 97th engineering battalion. They also had
  footage (some in color) of the building of the road. The show
  also featured a resident of Dawson's Creek, Canada, which is
  where the railhead was located. Apparently it was a bit
  traumatic to have 11,000 soldiers descend on a settlement of
  some 200 - 300 full time residents. :-)

    I did not notice any flaws with the naration and the foot-
  age being shown, plus the description of the hazards faced
  squared with what I have heard regarding the challenges of
  building on perma-frost and muskeg.

    All in all, it seemed to be produced by somebody who
  cared, and not the usual slapdash slop shown.

                            Bruce
Signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "I like bad!"                         Bruce Burden    Austin, TX.
       - Thuganlitha
       The Power and the Prophet
       Robert Don Hughes

someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT
>: no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
>:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>                                                        Bruce

i've seen that show. it is excellent. but they interchange a lot and i belive
the alcan show was a hc original.
Richard Brooks - 07 Nov 2007 08:37 GMT
someone@some.domain said the following on 07/11/2007 01:15:
> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.

List programmes are always best kept away from.

The classic style of History programme format arises typically in the
carrier edition.  Cram a whole history of carriers around the world in
about 5 minutes then spend the rest of the time on some present day US
carrier expounding on how much food is eaten, how much beer is drunk,
how much they've shat each day, the list goes on!  WTF?
someone@some.domain - 07 Nov 2007 17:06 GMT
>someone@some.domain said the following on 07/11/2007 01:15:
>> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>carrier expounding on how much food is eaten, how much beer is drunk,
>how much they've shat each day, the list goes on!  WTF?
obviouvly aimed at massmind and not a real history buff.
crw59@earthlink.net - 07 Nov 2007 09:54 GMT
On Nov 6, 5:15 pm, some...@some.domain wrote:
> no way the harrier is one of the top 10 best fighters.

elaborate pleez.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.