waldo

hey D2.0... have you stayed away long enough... to avoid all those pointedly critical references to the F-35? Why, I even replied to you directly with a couple of those... and yet somehow you've managed to ignore them and all of a sudden pop-up when stealth reference comes forward. Go figure, hey! The again, those many pages of non-F35 derail discussion did help the 'bury job' on all those critical posts, right? let me remind you that Gen. Mike Hostage has been retired almost 2 years now... but we had some 'fun' with earlier comments of his, right? You remember where he stated, "If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.". That really went over quite well - all that ensuing "heated debate in aerospace and defence circles", yes? I guess since no countries outside the U.S. have F-22s, why... that sort of fits right into the mold of JSF doesn't it? The U.S. gets all these "nation partners" to line-up and become the "fodder F-35s" feeding successive waves of the next U.S. led "intervention"... and the next, and the next, etc.. But hey now, I guess that comment of his fits right in with the F-35 not being able to "dogfight", right? so let's go back those couple of years and examine the retired Gen. Hostage's remarks on F-35 versus F-22 stealth... and particularly all his trumpeted statements on how he would deploy 'x' number of F-35s in the first wave, etc., - what's that based on... 2 years ago? Hell, what's it even based on today - simulators? certainly, by the strict numbers of RCS, the F-35 can't match the F-22 - and that's just the 'head on' look... clearly the F-35 'bottom/top/sides' presentation signature doesn't come close to the 'head on' number, right? But then again, you used the words, "all aspect stealth" and don't bother to elaborate further. Imagine that! - then again, all this talk/hype about resurrecting the F-22, where's that coming from and how does it reflect upon the F-35, hey? And you can't dismiss that as "blog talk", can you... not when it reaches into the top echelon of military and political discussion, right? of course one could look at the context of the retired Gen. Hostage's remarks and view it as just 'internal USAF versus USN' banter/posturing... and their respective 'philosophy differences', yes? There is a reason why the USN hasn't quite embraced the F-35... what could it be, what could it be? .

notwithstanding your unnecessary smarmy references to... notwithstanding, those notwithstandings... stand! They're significant above and beyond the principal focus of claimed inherent F-35 'stealthiness'. Notwithstanding advances in infrared 'search & track' - notwithstanding that! If you claim to have years ago expressed concerns over the F-35 stealth tech, your comment I replied to is... odd; where you said, "The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?" Which, of course, presumes they (I presume your described "Reds"... really, "Reds"?) don't have that capability now. Wasn't it the Russians who actually pioneered IRST? In any case, the point is most MLW neophytes here speak of the F-35 stealth as some form of invincibility... that it's not. A top US Navy officer (Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert) thinks that one of the F-35's most hyped capabilities is 'overrated' ... as in the Boeing Super Hornet F/A-18F variant, the EA-18G Growler . .

in which country would that be, hey? .

hey, no worries - see interim 'gap-filling' purchase, uhhh... suggestion; ya, suggestion! Try to keep up, hey! .

oh really! Talk to the NRA-hand: NRA involved in gun registry debate .

notwithstanding the absence of any formal statement on the state of F-35 stealth, vis-a-vis real-world testing (isn't "classified" just a handy ready go-to), the F-35 signature you speak to is, per specification/as reported, keyed to 'X' band with a stated good stealth capability on a "narrow frontal aspect" (supposedly not F-22 good, but still...); less so from the sides/bottom/top/rear. However, see tech advances in 'X' band radars on board fighters making them more capable of stealth target detection; e.g. Russian Su-35 fighter & IRBIS-E X-band radar. Notwithstanding, of course, advances in lower-band radars (VHF, UHF) allowing mobile ground-based radar systems to, reportedly, detect "low-observable aircraft" and more accurately direct missiles toward those targets. .

crossover point... "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and said bird can be invested, generating even more returns." Notwithstanding, typically, a health related diminished "quality of life" as you age past... "what age"? If you have ever had occasion to visit long-term care facilities, you will also readily recognize the disproportionate number of women-to-men still living... there's that too. .

was your unattributed source the article reference link I provided? http://www.icr.org/a...ify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes? --- if not, what source did you copy your unattributed text from? Plagiarism: You Can't Just Change a Few Words Mosaic plagiarism .

no - I did no such thing. I initially presented a reference link to an article, a graphic image from that article with highlighted text, and asked you if it might be a possible attribution for that same unattributed text of yours; again: http://www.icr.org/a...ify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes? --- in follow-up, you were again asked, "might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?" You refuse to acknowledge whether the provided linked reference site is your source, or if not, what source you copied your unattributed text from. your whining over the 'format' extension is simply a deflection; that extension was provided to clearly show a direct correlation in text and order of text between your unattributed commentary and the example reference site provided. Again, where did you source your commentary; these following statements presented in this exact order? .

if someone goes to the time/effort to group together a dozen, "facts/common knowledge" (or otherwise), within a written article... and another person copies that same information grouping and presents it, verbatim or minimally changed, as their own writings... without attributing the original 'someone', is that correct/allowed? .

again, might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?

no - I've not said word one about copyright infringement... I've been speaking to unattributed commentary. The latest example focuses on extract commentary from one of your posts, provides a reference article and asks you directly if it might be an attribution source for that commentary... and if not, asks where you did source your commentary from. You've chosen to ignore the multiple asks. .

no - you were originally asked a question if the reference offered was a possible attribution for your unattributed text; in follow-up, you were again asked, "might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?" You've chosen not to answer each time asked. .

no - I did not alter one single word of your unattributed text; this text: I presented a reference link to an article, a graphic image from that article with highlighted text, and asked you if it might be a possible attribution for that same unattributed text of yours; again: http://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes? the following 'format' guide presents a flow of text within the article/graphic; one that clearly and absolutely aligns with your unattributed text... as presented, not a single word has been changed and the order of text remains intact: - The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating, - The rotation of the earth is slowing; - the magnetic field of the earth is decaying. - Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth. - Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust. - Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced. - Many atoms decay to simpler products again, might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from? note: this is not a unique occurrence; many/most of your posts contain similar circumstance, where your written unattributed statements have exact or like occurrence elsewhere. .

http://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes? - The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating, - The rotation of the earth is slowing; - the magnetic field of the earth is decaying. - Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth. - Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust. - Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced. - Many atoms decay to simpler products .

apparently... only killing done by Muslims - amirite? .

here's Donny!

Trump thought he had a Republican RNC free-lunch... that he could eat for free off the backs of the establishment he so brazenly suggests he has no need for! Just days back media-wags are reporting on a Trump campaign so lacking in funds it has to resort to not advertising between now and the July 18th convention... the formal point of nomination where the RNC opens up the vault and begins to funnel money toward its candidate. Trump donors have gone MIA and he absolutely can't... and apparently wouldn't if he could, finance his own campaign! #makeAmericaGreatAgain .

the way you perpetually demean/belittle/denigrate the Canadian military, Canadian procurement, Canadian participation in NATO/NORAD, Canadian foreign engagements, etc., should anyone accept your hypocritical phrasing that has you now speaking of a, "time honored dedication of service to country"? .

Canada doesn’t have enough fighter jets, Liberals say, despite plans to upgrade CF-18 fighter fleet .

the linked article was challenged here, without substantiating proof, to suggest the F-35 'could dogfight'. The Janes commentary speaks to the intent behind the linked article, confirming it; again: "The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so...... This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not..... rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other". the additional emphasis in that Janes commentary is that nations have factored a presumptive capability of, "close-in aerial combat"... into their purchase intent (real or otherwise... not real until actual purchases occur) - directly mentioning countries expecting to have the F-35 actually replace those capabilities of the F-16. in regards your statement: "The really scary thing about this plane IMO is what happens if/when the Russians/Chinese are capable of defeating the F-35's stealth systems?" Notwithstanding the cascade of critical thought/review concerning stealth and defeating it today... today...what gives you any sense that F-35 stealth will be effective? .

you copied it from "somewhere" and you pasted into your MLW thread OP... and I insist upon that! now it is a fact those many phrasings you present (as your own), do exist within other sources... but they are not statements of fact... they're statements of your religious faith. They're not common knowledge unless you limit the "common" to the confines of your religious faith. your conscious decision is to present, unattributed, the writings of others as your own (whether or not your sources have properly attributed, in themselves). .

I guess I've missed reading those, 'from many', comments you describe - those "contented and dismissive" comments that settle in on a presumptive mental incapacity being the only factor. Well, wait now... if someone does have mental incapacity, doesn't that factor into a/your presumptive view that rational thought was driving any actions taken? In the face of presumptive mental incapacity, how does one attempt to rationalize "opposing ideological perspectives" as a subjective determiner for the differing viewpoints taken, in "early days", by those so needing find an answer and apply labels? .