Pack a Gun to Protect Valuables from Airline Theft or Loss?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Chris H on 28 Jan 2010 10:53 In message <3e93m593346jcn7lg7tvhm33gpuje79ur7(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:33:53 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >wrote: > >>In message <q0t1m5p90bng71a7cj2tl8ug58rs988tr1(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:56:02 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>In message <03eul51qo44qok88rt8b1hliklg9k7l3m5(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>>>On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:05:06 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>Yeah, right. We're supposed to believe that the opinion of some >>>>>>>low-level non-combatant can speak for the professional military. >>>>>> >>>>>>So where do you get that information from? >>>>> >>>>>Don't weasel. Were you, or were you not, a ranking officer at command >>>>>level >>>> >>>>Now you really show you don't understand >>> >>>They are the only military personnel that can effectively judge >>>another military. Other ranks have too limited a view. They tend to >>>base their opinion on individual encounters and not the larger >>>picture. >> >>That was true in the Soviet, Chinese and it seems the US military. It is >>not the case is smaller professional militaries. > >What nonsense. A smaller military is in no way more capable of >assessing the effectiveness of a larger military force. This is >another one of your misrepresentations made up to support your bias. No. In some militaries only Officers get to do some things and the enlisted don't. Eg the Chinese, Soviet and US. In other professional militaries, which tend to be the smaller ones, NCO's and other ranks often get as much information as officers. Which military were you in? >>>That contradicts what you've been saying. You've been claiming to >>>have been actively involved in counter-terrorism. >>Yes >>>Combat troops >>>counter terrorism by their actions, but counter-terrorism is >>>information gathering and planning. Not front line combat. >>That is down to semantics and definition. >The false definition in question seems to be your alleged role in the >military. One day its high-level counter-terrorism, and the next day >its front line combat. It is you that is dreaming up these titles and roles not me. You seem to have mutually exclusive roles for some of these definitions. You can be involved in counter terrorist work and get shot at. Or do you only class as "active combat" charging at the enemy across a field in groups of 200? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: tony cooper on 28 Jan 2010 14:42 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:53:03 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <3e93m593346jcn7lg7tvhm33gpuje79ur7(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:33:53 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>wrote: >> >>>In message <q0t1m5p90bng71a7cj2tl8ug58rs988tr1(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:56:02 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>In message <03eul51qo44qok88rt8b1hliklg9k7l3m5(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>>>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>>>>On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:05:06 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yeah, right. We're supposed to believe that the opinion of some >>>>>>>>low-level non-combatant can speak for the professional military. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So where do you get that information from? >>>>>> >>>>>>Don't weasel. Were you, or were you not, a ranking officer at command >>>>>>level >>>>> >>>>>Now you really show you don't understand >>>> >>>>They are the only military personnel that can effectively judge >>>>another military. Other ranks have too limited a view. They tend to >>>>base their opinion on individual encounters and not the larger >>>>picture. >>> >>>That was true in the Soviet, Chinese and it seems the US military. It is >>>not the case is smaller professional militaries. >> >>What nonsense. A smaller military is in no way more capable of >>assessing the effectiveness of a larger military force. This is >>another one of your misrepresentations made up to support your bias. > >No. In some militaries only Officers get to do some things and the >enlisted don't. Eg the Chinese, Soviet and US. In other professional >militaries, which tend to be the smaller ones, NCO's and other ranks >often get as much information as officers. You gotta be kidding. You're posting with the view of a former member of the UK military, and trying to imply that all ranks have equal access to information. You might pull that off if you were referring to military forces of the Principality of Monaco. You are getting ridiculous. > >Which military were you in? U.S. Army. PIO. >>>>That contradicts what you've been saying. You've been claiming to >>>>have been actively involved in counter-terrorism. >>>Yes >>>>Combat troops >>>>counter terrorism by their actions, but counter-terrorism is >>>>information gathering and planning. Not front line combat. >>>That is down to semantics and definition. >>The false definition in question seems to be your alleged role in the >>military. One day its high-level counter-terrorism, and the next day >>its front line combat. > >It is you that is dreaming up these titles and roles not me. You seem to >have mutually exclusive roles for some of these definitions. You can be >involved in counter terrorist work and get shot at. Or do you only >class as "active combat" charging at the enemy across a field in groups >of 200? If you don't know what a combat soldier is, you are in no position to comment on military issues. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 28 Jan 2010 17:14 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ipp3m5l15dtsivdedm7rprg1q7urlqg88o(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:53:03 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> > wrote: > >>In message <3e93m593346jcn7lg7tvhm33gpuje79ur7(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:33:53 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>In message <q0t1m5p90bng71a7cj2tl8ug58rs988tr1(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>>>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:56:02 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In message <03eul51qo44qok88rt8b1hliklg9k7l3m5(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>>>>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>>>>>On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:05:06 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yeah, right. We're supposed to believe that the opinion of some >>>>>>>>>low-level non-combatant can speak for the professional military. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So where do you get that information from? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Don't weasel. Were you, or were you not, a ranking officer at >>>>>>>command >>>>>>>level >>>>>> >>>>>>Now you really show you don't understand >>>>> >>>>>They are the only military personnel that can effectively judge >>>>>another military. Other ranks have too limited a view. They tend to >>>>>base their opinion on individual encounters and not the larger >>>>>picture. >>>> >>>>That was true in the Soviet, Chinese and it seems the US military. It is >>>>not the case is smaller professional militaries. >>> >>>What nonsense. A smaller military is in no way more capable of >>>assessing the effectiveness of a larger military force. This is >>>another one of your misrepresentations made up to support your bias. >> >>No. In some militaries only Officers get to do some things and the >>enlisted don't. Eg the Chinese, Soviet and US. In other professional >>militaries, which tend to be the smaller ones, NCO's and other ranks >>often get as much information as officers. > > You gotta be kidding. You're posting with the view of a former member > of the UK military, and trying to imply that all ranks have equal > access to information. You might pull that off if you were referring > to military forces of the Principality of Monaco. You are getting > ridiculous. > >> >>Which military were you in? > > U.S. Army. PIO. > >>>>>That contradicts what you've been saying. You've been claiming to >>>>>have been actively involved in counter-terrorism. >>>>Yes >>>>>Combat troops >>>>>counter terrorism by their actions, but counter-terrorism is >>>>>information gathering and planning. Not front line combat. >>>>That is down to semantics and definition. >>>The false definition in question seems to be your alleged role in the >>>military. One day its high-level counter-terrorism, and the next day >>>its front line combat. >> >>It is you that is dreaming up these titles and roles not me. You seem to >>have mutually exclusive roles for some of these definitions. You can be >>involved in counter terrorist work and get shot at. Or do you only >>class as "active combat" charging at the enemy across a field in groups >>of 200? > > If you don't know what a combat soldier is, you are in no position to > comment on military issues. > > Notice in the microstock price war thread, he is now complaining about how amateur photographers screw things up for the professionals. Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:EQxHCVWzgHYLFAWZ(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk "I agree too... the amateurs are screwing it up for the pros. The trouble is the amateurs can subsidies the photography from their day job" -- Peter
From: Chris H on 29 Jan 2010 13:02 In message <4b620c8b$0$31163$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes > >Notice in the microstock price war thread, he is now complaining about >how amateur photographers screw things up for the professionals. And your point is? Professional Photographer Magazine was saying the same thing this month. >Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:EQxHCVWzgHYLFAWZ(a)ph >aedsys.demon.co.uk > >"I agree too... the amateurs are screwing it up for the pros. The >trouble is the amateurs can subsidies the photography from their day >job" > > -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: tony cooper on 29 Jan 2010 15:01
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:43:37 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >>>Which military were you in? >>U.S. Army. PIO. > >Ok. That is colouring your perception. In the US army (as in the Soviet >and Chinese ) only the Officers have information. It is not the case in >other militaries. There is information, and there is information. >As to the original point of US and the Law... > >Detention with out trial >Detention without access to legal representation >Detention without charges >Kidnapping >Torture >Killing of civilians without warning This you saw in California? Your trip to California was your stated base of knowledge for your claims about US law. Guantanamo is not in California. > >BTW don't bring up the bombing of German cites again When did I do that? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |