In rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Bill Turner wrote:

snip

As long as folks like you own these priceless relics, someday the last
one will be reduced to scrap. What a shame.

Bill T.

No one is keeping YOU from gathering money for acquisition, restoration,
and floor space for a static display.

Or is it just easier for you to **** and moan about the people that are
actually doing something without any personal involvement on your part
other than your ****ing and moaning?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

-=H=- wrote:

We will survive. Let's
just stop all of the arguing and whining. This isn't
the right forum for it.



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

Very interesting that the post asking to stop the arguing and whining
is the longest post of all, by far. In a nutshell, that's the problem.
Only your thoughts are important, only your desires are valid, what you
want is primary above all.

Yet you think *you* have the right to dictate to the people that own and
pay for those craft what _they_ "should" do with their own property.


As long as folks like you own these priceless relics, someday the last
one will be reduced to scrap. What a shame.

Which will have absolutely *zero* effect on the number of non-flying
"relics" on static display.

Available evidence suggests (*very* strongly, too) that "more or less
*NOBODY*" wants to spend the money to preserve such static non-flying
display aircraft. That *those* aircraft are being 'reduced to scrap'
_today_, for lack of interest. "What a shame", indeed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, how much money have _you_ donated to
the support of _any_ "non-flying B-17 static display" organization?

It's always easier to spend somebody else's money, isn't it?

I suspect the appellation 'hypocrite' applies.

In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

RST Engineering wrote:

Money talks, bull**** walks.

Jim

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

Not so pal, just the opposite. Bull****ters talk forever, money steps
up and quietly does the job.

Bill T.

And you, by your own admission are "all talk, and no money", critizing
those who _have_ 'stepped up and are doing the job'.

At least you recognize your own shoe.

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

Airplanes crash, especially ones flown and maintained by well-meaning
but inexperienced pilots and mechanics who are usually short of cash,
spare parts and time, and who, sooner or later, will feel the pressure
to fly it when they really shouldn't in order to keep an airshow
schedule.

Park it.


Bill, have you considered a career in politics?

Exactly where would you suggest we park general aviation?
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.

Woody wrote:


Bill, have you considered a career in politics?

Yes, but I'm not crooked enough to get elected.

Exactly where would you suggest we park general aviation?

General aviation doesn't need parking as far as I can tell.

The B-17G should be parked in the desert, in a hangar, where there is
low humidity and no violent weather. It would last practically forever,
and at five or ten bucks a ticket, would be a source of income also
practically forever. And guess what... no maintenance cost either,
except maybe for a feather duster now and then. :-)

Bill T.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
Woody wrote:


Bill, have you considered a career in politics?

Yes, but I'm not crooked enough to get elected.

Exactly where would you suggest we park general aviation?

General aviation doesn't need parking as far as I can tell.

The B-17G should be parked in the desert, in a hangar, where there is
low humidity and no violent weather. It would last practically forever,
and at five or ten bucks a ticket, would be a source of income also
practically forever. And guess what... no maintenance cost either,
except maybe for a feather duster now and then. :-)

Bill T.

How sad.

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.

-=H=- wrote:
----snip----
This IS still the United States of America....
----snip----

No, I'm afraid not, this is bigger and better than the USA