In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Jimmie got as far as looking up Bear bombers in some book.

Naw, just the Internet. Found out they weren't a threat to Len when he
was in Japan.

Sunuvagun!

Tsk. You seem to be saying there were NO Soviet bombers in
range of Japan in the 1950s?

That's wrong (again), Leonard. He is saying that Soviet "Bear" bombers
could not have been a threat to you during your military service in
Japan, despite what you indicated here.

Here's exactly what Len wrote about "Bear" bombers:

From: Len Over 21 )
Subject: 34 Years Ago Today
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Date: 2002-12-08 21:01:08 PST

"The distance between Chongjin, North Korea and Tokyo (where
I was assigned) is about 500 air miles. The distance between
Vladivostok, USSR, was about the same distance. That's about
an hour's flight in a Bear (NATO name for a Soviet bomber). Less
time of flight now with jet turbine aircraft."

Note that Len doesn't actually say there were any Bear bombers in Vladivostok
or Chongjin at the time, or that he ever saw any, etc. But the implication that
he was in some sort of imminent danger from them is clear.

Here's what I wrote in response:


I think you missed some relevant points, Dave. Len's reference to the
"Bear" bomber might lead the unsuspecting to think he was in some sort
of danger from them while in Japan. However:

- The airline distance from Chongjin, North Korea to Tokyo is at least
670 statute miles. The distance from Vladivostok to Tokyo is 663 statute
miles. (Source: "Esso War Map III, Featuring The Pacific Theater",
printed 1944).

- For interesting info on the Tupolev TU-95, and its variants, known
to NATO as the "Bear", see:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm

which tells us that:

- Development of the TU-95/"Bear" began in June, 1951.

- First flight of the first prototype, November, 1952.

- Production began January, 1956.

- First deployment August, 1957.

- Four turboprop engines driving counterrotating propellers.
"Turboprop" refers to jet turbine engines driving propellers.

- Len left Japan before any TU-95s were deployed.

Therefore, they were no threat at all to him when he was in Japan. Also, the
distances and flight times were greater than he stated.

As with your well known
"Sphincter Post", it leads some of us to question your character.

It just leads me to question Len's grasp of objective reality.

What's curious about the Sphincter Post is that it's a direct insult to the
military service of a member of the Coast Guard, who served as a radioman in
Hawaii and who described some experiences while serving. Yet Len was never in
the Coast Guard and never did the kind of radio operating he criticizes.

More telling, however, is Len's classic "Feldwebel Post" in which he told you
(Dave) to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel".

In just one short sentence, Len manages to violate Godwin's Law, insult a
branch of the US military, attempt to deny someone their First Amendment
rights, uses a mild profanity, tries to act as the moderator of an unmoderated
newsgroup, and arguably makes an ethnic slur in the mix.

As we often say where I work:

"Everybody's good at *something*.

The bile on rrap comes from the three-way Steve/Len/Wiliam whizzing
contest. You all must get something from it, because you sure put a
lot of effort into it.

Tsk. Rev. Jim is readying another Sermon on the Antenna Mount?

Jim states a fact. Don't you have an acceptable response?

Acceptable to whom? Len sees nothing unacceptable in his behavior, but finds
the behavior of certain others to be unacceptable to him. In the above example,
it is perfectly acceptable (to Len) for him to imply that he was in constant,
imminent danger from TU-95s while he was in Japan, but completely unacceptable
for me to point out that there were no TU-95s deployed anywhere until after he
left.

Rev. Jim "puts a lot of effort" into making SURE that all those
he thinks need "corrections" get those "corrections!" QED.

Takes very little effort on my part. Len makes so many mistakes here that I
don't try to correct all of them.

What has that to do with your whizzing contest?

Nothing.

btw, Len, a little googling turned up the fun fact that Steve began
calling you a putz back on August 6, 1999 - if not earlier. Of course
you had previously made a habit of calling him "nursie" and other
names, and referring to him by the wrong gender.

Tsk. You are still being Judge and Jury via Google, aintfcha?

:-)

Jim is? Not at all, Leonard. Your archived words and the dates on
which you posted them are archived. It is proof of your actions. In
this case, things didn't happen the way you claim they did.

When Rev. Jim runs out of arguments in the present, he MUST
resort to Googling to "prove" something.

Len constantly rehashes the past, then is angered by and abusive of those who
present conflicting information disproving his assertions.

Most importantly, Len cannot seem to get Steve to stop calling him a putz.

...and it looks like the Google archives of newsgroup posts did just
that. The archive seems to prove that version of events is not correct.

Which is why Len switches to name-calling and excessive emoticons. He's been
shown to be mistaken, which is simply unacceptable.

Jimmie thinks he can "win" some past arguments by repeating and
rehashing OLD ones?

The facts speak for themselves.

When you start the "Jimmie" stuff, it is obvious that he has zapped you
good. You made a recent statement and issued it as a factual account of
something which took place. The trouble is, the Google archives say
otherwise.

The amusing part is that Len talks about "the past" more than anyone else here,
then gets angry when his version of events is shown to be somewhat unreliable
or incomplete (to put it mildly).

Of course...if for no other reason that Jimmie
Must Be Right in his own mind. Subject itself be damned, concentrate
on defaming the opponent in order to "win." Tsk.

Posting of facts is "defaming the opponent"?

Diversion on your part. If you didn't want to be batted around on this
issue, you could have refrained from, "Well, HE started it".

Perhaps you need to try some new techniques if you want him to stop.

Ah...you must have run out of damp hankies to slap folk on the
wrist as self-styled moderator! :-)

When did it become Jim's job to regulate Steve?

But I don't think you want him to stop.

Doesn't really matter to me. There will ALWAYS be some yo-yo
out there who can't argue a subject for squat and does the personal
insult thing in order to "win an argument." :-) Those are alleasy
marks. Plenty of them. :-)

If anyone would know, you'd know.

You don't want anyone else doing what you do.

Let's remember that phrase, shall we?

"who can't argue a subject for squat and does the personal insult thing in
order to "win an argument." "

That's pretty much a fair description of what Len does here.



73 de Jim, N2EY