waldo
-
Posts
17,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waldo
-
-
Given that you deliberately committed a dishonest act.....
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?
Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.
Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.
Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.
Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.
Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.
Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.
Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.
Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.
.
-
You can ask a thousand times more.....I'm not obliged to cater to your obtuseness.
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?
-
You should go to Question Section and read the explanation given by sources regarding citations and copyright infringements. Read them several times.....seems they're not sinking in there, Waldo. Persevere.
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.
.
-
Anyway...... His, are the kind of unbelievably ignorant, dishonest, and trolling posts that really hurt discussion boards!
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. It's a deliberate false attribution from you. You're falsely attributing your own format to that of that site's! You've deliberately taken the time and effort to change their article's format, and you're trying to pass it off that's how they've written it!
You're being deliberately dishonest! Not only are you deliberately being dishonest in trying to make it look like I copy-pasted, but you're also giving a false representation of their "product." How terribly desperate, and low is that? As far as I'm concerned, you've thrown away all your credibility.
no - I did not alter one single word of your unattributed text; this text:
Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.
Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.
Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.
Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.
Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.
Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.
Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.
Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.
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.
.
-
Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.
Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.
Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.
Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.
Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.
Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.
Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.
Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.
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
.
-
-
-
Maybe they should have organized a lot sooner instead of waiting for Trump to eat their lunch.
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
.
-
Sadly, this commentary recommends not joining Canadian Forces, a time honoured dedication of service to country, because the funding levels are so low:
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"?
.
-
I actually remember saying that on any given day, we only had 34 CF-18s ready for action. That is less than our NORAD commitment, never mind our NATO commitment.
Canada doesn’t have enough fighter jets, Liberals say, despite plans to upgrade CF-18 fighter fleet
Owens said Canada has a certain number of CF-18s committed to defending North America through the joint Canada-U.S. aerospace command, NORAD, on a daily basis. It also has a certain number of fighter jets committed to NATO.
“And when you add these two numbers together, that is greater than the number of planes that we can put into the sky on an average day, which we would call mission ready,” she said. “So that is what we are defining as a capability gap.”
.
-
waldo you know as well as I do that your link is a partisan hack-job. While I'm not going to argue the test pilot's findings, the article writer certainly put a neat spin on it. The F-35 was designed as a BVR fighter. Period. That it would fail in a visual range dogfight is no surprise. Anyone with even rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics was predicting this years ago (excluding expert
cheerleadersarmchair generals like Derek who of course argued otherwise). That being said, the plane's hardly going to be dead meat flying. Its advantages elsewhere will more than make up for that.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?
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?
.
-
This is ridiculous. This is the last time I'm going to explain this:
This is what I've posted in my OP:
The Bible was written by fishermen, kings, government officials, priests, farmers, shepherds, and doctors.......and yet, from all this diversity comes an incredible unity, with common themes woven throughout. That unity is due to a single fact: it ultimately has One Author – God Himself. It tells of paradise lost, and paradise regained.
It is not a copy/paste. Anyone who insists it is, is unbelievably dumb, and is a waste of my time.
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).
.
-
From the comments here it seems like many are content to say "oh, he was just 'mentally unstable'" and dismiss any further factors in his decision to kill.
But to someone from an opposing ideological viewpoint, maybe Roza was 'mentally unstable' and Omar is a true hero. Isn't the difference kind of subjective?
Personally, I don't agree with the use of the phrase "mentally unstable" being used to mean "somebody whose motives I don't understand". To me, it seems like a cop-out, a way of saying "I can't personally relate to this, therefore it's not real". Maybe to Omar Mateen the need to fight homosexuals was very real, just as for Roza Shaninia the need to fight Nazis was very real.
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?
.
-
Based on this list, there are so few operational CF-188s left it would be easy to create an Adopt-a-Hornet program in Canada to raise money for service life extensions. Support your favourite Hornet today!
this... this is one of the lamest of your ever present attempts to craft some slight (overt or subtle) toward Canada/Canadians. There's never been any suggestion that the latest modification intent wouldn't be done, wouldn't be funded. You know this. You absolutely know that the related initiative is active and in progress with the RCAF working to determine requirements and build an implementation plan to guide actual work to complete.
but your lame attempt is an inspiration to project upon, once again, the USN being the 'reluctant one'... the reluctant U.S. military branch that really has little want for the F-35. All those cutting remarks from 'Admiral types' played out through earlier MLW F-35 threads... remarks that had to be walked-back to foster a false image of USN "buy in". Following your post lead, perhaps there's an opportunity for U.S. citizens and corporate out-reach to help the USN to finally get on-board with the F-35... to get busy! Go Navy!!!
U.S. Senate - 2017 Defense Appropriation Report
The fiscal year 2017 budget request includes 63 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, six fewer than were provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016.
In comparison to quantities planned in the fiscal year 2016 budget request, the Air Force's fiscal year 2017 request includes five fewer aircraft in fiscal year 2017 and 45 fewer aircraft from fiscal years 2017 to 2021. The Committee is concerned that the current programmed quantities will not support the fielding of F-35 squadrons, as initially planned.
The Committee notes that the Navy continues to delay previously planned production increases of the F-35C carrier variant and has budgeted for no more than four F-35C aircraft since fiscal year 2014, even though prior budget requests planned for more aircraft. The fiscal year 2017 budget request again includes only four F-35Cs, two fewer than were provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016. The Committee notes that it is challenging to efficiently manufacture a small number of F-35C aircraft on the same production line as the F-35A and F-35B aircraft, given the unique items associated with the carrier variant. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Navy to maintain, at a minimum, the current procurement plan in the fiscal year 2018 budget request.
.
-
Interesting that you bring up 2040. I wonder which other fighter will be still operating at that time, per the US Navy?
why... I"m gonna say the Super Hornet! And yet we have MLW members here playing up the 'Canada will be on its own' theme... that parts will be impossible to source! Its as if some here actually think the U.S. Navy has designs on having the F-35 replace their Super Hornets. Of course, the USN has/had intentions for the F-35C carrier-based variant to complement its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets... and to replace its F-14s and earlier model F/A-18 Hornets.
.
-
the perfect thread title!
Sorry...too late....the nomination is in the bag.
oh really! Again, the Republican rumblings of how to "dump the Trump" are rising... coincidentally timed with those latest polls showing Clinton leading Trump by double-digits! When Trump starts talking of it himself, today, "where he tells the Republican establishment to just keep quiet"... where Trump speaks of, "having to go it alone... and that he's not worried about doing so... that he'll do just fine on his own" - that sir, that is the writing on the wall! Expect rule changes for the Republican convention, perhaps something to free-up delegates for the first round - the only question is, who will be put forward in place of Trump? Cruz?
.And Trump is happy that most Canadians live in Canada too, except for the ones who don't...or overstay their visas more than Mexicans or any other nationals. Something about better weather or trying to find a job in the U.S.
you keep plying this nonsense... there's a 't' word for that! You've trotted this out twice in the status updates and here now (and probably elsewhere, I expect). I suggest you first start by understanding just what "Canadian" requires a U.S. visa and under what circumstance... see 'non-permanent residents' for a start!
it was quite comical (and timely given all the Trump "WALL" rhetoric) to read that U.S. Homeland Security has never had an understanding on the 'Mexican and Canadian visa-overstay' numbers... only bringing it forward in recent weeks; but again, as I emphasized to you, those numbers are only for U.S. air and sea entry points - "America" has no idea what numbers of visa-overstays associate to land-entry! Best to build that Trump Wall - north & south, hey!
you keep flogging this yet... somehow... you think the number significant! As of 2015 that "Canadian" number provided by U.S. DHS is ~90K..... why, that's mice-nuts compared to the ~11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.. You presume to make a big deelio over ~90K... in the face of ~11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.? Yours is an interesting position/perspective! But wait now... why isn't U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) doing anything... anything... about those ~90K "Canadians". Wassup with that?
. -
"countdown to D2.0's excuse list...Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight - New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle"
I have no need of an excuse, as said blog post lacked context (as we already hashed), in that said flight testing was intended to set the control laws of the aircraft's avionics..........inversely, you've been remiss in addressing the comments of the Norwegian air force pilot:
so confusing - are you actually maintaining the F-35... can "dogfight"? As much as LockMart/supporters want to cast that "Norwegian air force pilot comments" towards 'damage control', even if you accept what is said, those comments weren't in relation to an actual formal head-to-head competition; where's the follow-up demonstration between the F-35 and 'whatever' to reinforce your claim that the F-35/F-16 head-to-head was just, as you said, "to set the avionics control laws"?
in any case, when in doubt consult the "Janes bible": JPO counters media report that F-35 cannot dogfightThe War is Boring article appears to have accurately recounted the test pilot's experiences and comments (as the JPO seems to be only disputing the interpretation of the pilot's findings not their authenticity) when it says the F-35 performed poorly in close-in dogfighting.
For its part, the JPO was quite correct when it stated the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting (some have postulated the aircraft would have been better designated the A-35 rather than the F-35, on account of its weighting towards the attack role), and that aircraft AF-2 used for the test was not fitted with many of the advanced systems that would likely have enabled it to defeat its adversary when fighting on its own medium- to long-range terms.
However, while the JPO can point to such discrepancies between the test pilot's comments (as they appeared in the article) and the F-35's mission set, it should be noted that many nations that cannot afford multiple aircraft types are procuring the F-35 as a multirole 'jack of all trades' to perform the full spectrum of missions.
Though advanced sensor and missile technology renders the classic dogfight less likely than at any point during the history of military aviation, rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other. 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.
With the F-35 set to become the dominant platform in Western (and allied) use over the coming decades (in many cases procured specifically as an F-16 replacement), its apparent lack of a close-in aerial combat capability will raise concern, especially considering the range of new 'fifth-generation' fighters coming out of Russia and China, such as the PAK-FA and J-20. This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not.... "until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise"
.
-
Since somebody brought up the Aussies, what keen fun it is to read their comments to the latest wrinkle in the CF-18 replacement fiasco...guess they are watching too:
B. Harrison says
ya ya... prowling the readers comment section - classic move - why bother to actually quote anything from the article itself? I guess by providing a link to it, you presume to legitimize a comment from some anonymous smo... who adds absolutely nothing new! Classic move..
-
"Again, per the U.S. Pentagon's Undersecretary of Acquisition, Frank Kendall: Pentagon official casts more doubt on Harper’s dire F-35 industry warning"
"We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program."
.
Again, he is clearly referring to those current LRIP contracts that Canadian companies already are producing for........the Lockheed "threat" is clearly referring to far more lucrative production and sustainment contracts.
No, we have a representative of one of the World's largest defense contractors stating the obvious......we don't purchase the aircraft, we don't get anymore contracts.............there is no "posturing", but a statement of fact..........
And again, per the head of the RCAF, there is no need of an interim type if this government elects to fund the Hornet upgrade.........granting upwards of five years for this Government (assuming its reelected) to award a contract via a "fair & transparent" competition...as it promised.........hey now! No worries - who's your daddy? Why... it's Boeing!
Boeing, which is about to mark 100 years of operations in Canada, employs more than 2,000 people at 12 locations and draws from over 600 suppliers across the country for almost all of its commercial aircraft and most of its military platforms, making Canada one of its largest supply bases.
Boeing vice-president Roger Schallom also attempted Wednesday to put to rest the notion that Canadian aerospace jobs would be lost if the F-35 isn't selected.
Many of the 110 Canadian companies doing business with Lockheed Martin are also working for Boeing on separate contracts.
If Boeing's plane is chosen, Schallom said, the company could replace or even exceed the current $825 million in contracts and the up to $10 billion lifetime value of industrial benefits.
"We will put in much more work than those numbers. I can't quantify it until we see what the [air force] requirement is, but we will definitely trump those numbers," he said.
.
-
Good luck finding that out....it's usually just more regurgitation of readily available U.S. flight hour costs. For some reason in Canada, it is a big DND mystery.
easy-peasy... I found the per/hour cost for the CF-18 @ $20,000 (Canadian)... I used what you repeatedly remind us of - I used "America's Google"!
as for the F-35:
per USAF: 2015 cost per flight hour for F-35: $44,000 (U.S) per hour.
per US GAO: 2012 cost per flight hour for F-35: $35,000 (U.S) per hour.
per US DoD: 2012 cost per flight hour for F-35: $32,000 (U.S) per hour.
of course, LockMart has grand projections on how much that operating cost will come down based on increased production numbers!
.
-
A downsizing based on ............
as noted in past threads, its probable that we still would require additional attrition aircraft dependent on any losses down the road.....this of course would be a problem with an aircraft that is no longer produced, hence requiring a larger initial purchase (see the difference in the proposed Danish deal between F-35 vs Super Hornet)
so... a number not based on "gutting" then, hey! It's a shame you couldn't have said that as that was the emphasis point the MLW member was presuming to offer: that "Trudeau leaner" automatically means "gutting".
and yes, I recall past focus on "attrition" numbers/cost - except it had to do with Harper Conservatives failing to mention that requirement or cost it in regards those initial "fake/false/trumped-up" proposal they tried to misinform Canadians with. What was that eventual number realized for F-35 attrition? Correct me if I'm wrong but I have a recollection of around 6 or 7... no biggee right?
your forever boogie-man claims towards the shutdown of all production lines from all manufacturers... leaving only the magic/mystical F-35... why your claims are legion! Why even try to put that Danish 'farce' forward in regards attrition - those number requirements for the Super Hornet had nothing to do with attrition.
but ya... Canada doesn't have a 'boneyard' to tap... like the USMC just did due to the perpetual F-35 delayed machine:
wait now - that was you forever going on about the fake/trumped-up/propaganda based USMC IOC... always hyping it? Of course, the IOC charade has already been relayed here in prior related F-35 threads - yes? Why tap the boneyard if the F-35B is, cough - cough, "combat ready"?
US Marine Corps recovering 'boneyard' Hornets to plug capability gap
Quote
The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.
Speaking at Boeing's Global Sustainment and Support (GS&S) site at Cecil Field in northern Florida, Bill Maxwell, senior manager F/A-18 operations, said that the USMC has contracted the company to recover 30 legacy Hornets from the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) facility at Davis-Monthan AFB to cover a projected shortfall in numbers and capability as the service transitions over to the JSF.
"The USMC wants 30 Hornet aircraft - two full squadrons - recovered from the boneyard and 'reconstituted' for fleet service. These aircraft were never meant to fly again, but Boeing is bringing them to Cecil Field and extending their airframe lives from 6,000 hours to 8,000 hours, replacing all the old avionics with the latest systems, and returning them to the marines," Maxwell said.
Boeing Restores 30 F/A-18C+ Models for Marine Corps
Maxwell said F/A-18Cs arriving from Davis-Monthan AFB are generally lower-time fighters that hadn’t reached their full service lives..
-
Except there are no urgent operational reasons. The head of the RCAF testified to that before parliament only last month.
put that quote forward... show exactly what was stated - the exact words.
.
What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?
in Support and Questions
Posted
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
.