Absolutely, I get it.

Not.


You and the two or three posters who agree with you are self-centered
pigs who care nothing about preserving history.

I take it you don't speak face-to-face with others very often?
Your low-brow approach to debate is, if nothing else, good for a chuckle.

Looks like you just enjoy arguing without reason; because you're completely
unarmed,
and going in pointless circles with your posts. Try to make a valid point,
please.

Your temporary
adrenaline rush is much more important, and the risk of splattering a
priceless aircraft means nothing beside your momentary thrills. How sad
that people like you are allowed to own such an aircraft.

LOL... four words: lost ball, high weeds.
What does your above statement even mean???

FYI: Don't EVER research the film industry for any reason.


A hundred or five hundred years from now, if your ilk prevails, people
will be saying "Gosh, I wish someone had kept a B-17G preserved
somewhere. I would have really loved to see the real thing".

Wow...? Not sure what to say to that after reading your cumulative posts.
First, please refer to the "lost ball" statement above, then
try to do some research on vintage aircraft clubs, museums, owners and
current displays.


I hope and pray there are not many like you.

Plane-loads! And no thanks to you, we sit about debating whether or not a
Neanderthal with a superiority complex is a paradox.

Mister, it's painfully obvious that your intent is not to prove a point, nor
offer a reasonable debate; but to simply try and talk others down.
You must have a very hollow existence.

I hope and pray you can find a better way to spend your time.

rb

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Woody wrote:

Mister, it's painfully obvious that your intent is not to prove a
point, nor offer a reasonable debate; but to simply try and talk
others down. You must have a very hollow existence.


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

You completely missed it, Woody. My only concern here is to preserve a
historical artifact which once destroyed, can never be replaced. If the
current owners and future owners keep flying it around, it eventually
will be destroyed. Hopefully at some point the owners will wise up and
say "Enough. Lets park it before it's too late.".

My concern is as simple as that. Please do not read other motives into
my posts.

Bill T.

Bill, I'm not reading any motives. I'm simply responding to your approach.
It's a bit harsh.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of clipped wings grounded out
just as you describe.

Also, as others have said: We're getting nowhere fast, this is the wrong
group for that, and 'tis ok to agree to disagree.

However; I will concede a bit and say you can feel good knowing that if this
were the *last* B-17, I'd probably lean your way too. But it isn't the last,
and there's plenty of preserves.

What we have come to is quite simple; to collect or not to collect.... that
is the question.

The answer of course, is equally simple:

All hail the great and powerful.....*owner*.

Personal prefs aren't much for debating.... so I shall bow out.
regards,
Woody



"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Woody wrote:

Mister, it's painfully obvious that your intent is not to prove a
point, nor offer a reasonable debate; but to simply try and talk
others down. You must have a very hollow existence.


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

You completely missed it, Woody. My only concern here is to preserve a
historical artifact which once destroyed, can never be replaced. If the
current owners and future owners keep flying it around, it eventually
will be destroyed. Hopefully at some point the owners will wise up and
say "Enough. Lets park it before it's too late.".

My concern is as simple as that. Please do not read other motives into
my posts.

Bill T.