Mr Hawk,

You put a post out on this board that summarizes the central difficulty I have with the Y2K panic-mongering conspiracy-theorists. Not only did you post a purported Y2K-related reason for the crash of 261 as if it were fact, you posted a malicious, unsupported, slanderous comment about those charged with figuring out why those people died: "Right, tell the NTSB, and end up in the Hudson River wearing cement overshoes! LOL! Those guys are paid to cover this stuff up! Do you know how much money will be lost in the transportation industry if someone proves this to the masses? $$$ billions my friend, $$$ BILLIONS."

Then you had the temerity to introduce Mr Yourdon's name in your list of comments, as if citing him would lend credence to your general position.

I realize there is a certain amount of vigorous give-and-take, name-calling, and rule-bending, here in cyberspace, but this kind of shameless and vicious slander violates truth to such a degree that any posters here who do not immediately condemn this drivel are responsible by proxy for the death of reason in debating Y2K. Moreover, by not deleting your posts, particularly the one accusing the NTSB of killing people who help them find (putatively) unpopular reasons for an airplane crash, the Sysops patrolling this board have once and for all demonstrated cowardice and reckless disregard for their responsibility.

I understand you may feel strongly about this issue. I feel strongly about it. I have to fly every month. I would rather be wrong about my position on Y2K and fly safely than have a dangerous situation covered up and kill my smug self. But without a shred of evidence to support your position, what you have presented is one person's hopelessly biased theory and the naked assertion that Mr Hall and his organization would rather kill than find the truth, and are willing to jeopardize the lives of thousands of fliers because of money.

You, Mr Hawk, are an idiot. You are a fear-mongerer of the most wretched, truth-distorting, vicious, cowardly, inappropriate, imbecilic, dangerous, and stupid kind. In a single series of posts you have desecrated the innocent lives of those who died for your own ends, and you have diminished the cause of even well-meaning doomers such as Mr Yourdon. To the extent that naive and innocent readers of this forum will be influenced by your smears, you have incrementally weakened the fabric that holds our society together.

I condemn you for that. I accuse you of lying. I hold you accountable for publishing this trash, and I urge those in the cyber community who care about truth to join me in calling you a hate-mongering, self-serving, paranoid, truth-twisting jackal.

-- Imso (lame@prepped.com), February 09, 2000

Answers

Did we really need a second thread about this?

The Truth about Flight 261

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002WPW

Hawk has already replied to criticisms related to his thread on the other, first thread.

-- (just@helpin.out), February 09, 2000.

Man! You sound, lookand smell like Y2K Pro! Is there any family connection here? I do so love those self serving remarks about all the members of this forum being so in need of being protected from any evil, stray thoughts.

Imso...You apparently have mixed your optic nerves up with your rectum nerves..Result? Sir! You have a Sh&*^Y out look on life. And your politican's command of the King's english should win an award...You have used a complete dictonary of words. To say nothing of any content or value. My earlier estimate of your intellectual capiisity is deminishing by the minute here.

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 09, 2000.

Shakey,

Personaly, I think that IMSO, cinnloo, and LL are the same poster, but sys oops doesn't agree with me :-)

Sorry D and C :-)

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 09, 2000.

ROTFLMAO!!!

That is the funniest thing I've read on this forum in a long time Mr. Polyanna Imso! Thanks for the laughs. I can't remember the last time I've seen a Polly go off the deep end like that.

Thanks, it is an excellent indication that I am indeed VERY close to the truth, as my post states. You see, Imso, FACTS can be covered up, but TRUTH cannot.

Also, please be careful what you say about our sysops, I wouldn't want this one to be deleted, it is an excellent argument in favor of my position. Thanks again, and have a good night. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 09, 2000.

Imso.......get another life.

If this board and its postings are so "trashy" to you, please find another board that accommodates your whims and wishes better. You seem to have no place here. Why *are* you still here?

If you say there are lies here, please be explicit....what exactly are the "lies" posted here?

Do you feel challenged? hahahahaha (smiling)

-- Bird (Bird@nest.home), February 09, 2000.

Truth, LOL.... and hammer:-)

You guys/gals still think you're at De Bunker or BIFFY..... please go back and take LL with you.....

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 09, 2000.

Casper...........

Listen to D & C, you STUPID MORON

-- (casper, the stupid ghost, is stup@dbeyond.belief), February 09, 2000.

Same to you Y2kPaul Lee :-) or is that, Paul Dee...Prozac? :-)

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 09, 2000.

The notion the NTSB kills people who just try "to get the truth out" is pitiable. That Mr Shakey and others would defend him is surely among the reasons the thinking doomers have departed this forum, and the chemtrailers remain.

Here's a guy (Hawk) so desperate for something to be Y2K-related he's willing to desecrate the memory of the dead and slander the reputation of the finest, most meticulous, most well-trained investigative board in the crash analysis business, and the doomers want to support him.

It seems those of you supporting Mr Hawk's attack cannot be helped; my post was directed at limiting the damage of his distortions to others.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 09, 2000.

Imso,

Well said, son. Me n ol' Hawk been tryn' ta have a civil discourse on this here issue, but he never seems ta wanna answer any questions regardin' his postulations.

Shucks, I fly a whooole bunch, and you betcher this ol fat boy wouldn't have his butt up there, if I had anny doubts about the safety.

Jest a Dumb ole pilot Who Sez:

"There is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark"

-- jestadumbold (old@pilot.com), February 09, 2000.

Imso and Pro, very well said. Most of the doomer posters are just fools, sad people who can't think for themselves, however this complete and utter lowlife Hawk and those that support his crackpot story have taken it to a new level of desperation.

You all stand condemned for linking this unfortunate crash to the y2k hoax.

In all honesty, i've treated this forum as a bit of fun, but i am sickened and appalled by this.

Hawk, you are a hate-mongering, self-serving, paranoid, LIAR.

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), February 09, 2000.

Imso You sound just like one of those "bleeding heart" liberals who thinks it is his duty in life to protect others from the cradle to the grave. The lurkers and posters to this board are intelligent people and do not need to be protected from anyone's ideas or opinions. Hawk is just as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. If you don't agree with him that is your privilege; but you do not have the right to demand that he not be heard under the guise of "protecting the innocent".

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), February 09, 2000.

Mr Sane, if you're so appalled by this, then just take a hike. Hawk is the only one willing to speak the TRUTH about this incident. He is very likely risking his own life and perhaps even the life of his family to expose the lies perpetrated by the NTSB and their cronies. Our only hope is that someone will be able to come forward to expose this problem and fix it before thousands more are dead.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

Imso, With several other planes in the news recently (at least three I've counted ) seeming to have the same problem I wouldn't be so quick to get on a plane. I don't know if these stabilizer problems are Y2K related but the frequency seems to be increasing. Let's not forget the timing, too. Does make one wonder. Hmmmm?

-- Shoo (flyonthewalls@yahoo.com), February 09, 2000.

Mr Bird-- It is an explicit lie that the NTSB kills people helping them discover the truth about a crash. It is a lie that they cover up the "real" reason for crashes for the sake of money invested by TPTB.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 09, 2000.

Hawk:

Still waiting for your response to this from the earlier thread:

Hawk wrote: "The system became untestable in that testing for each of the possible time relationships between the computers was impossible. This random time relationship was a major contributor to the flight test anomalies."

Definitely Y2K related!

How do you figure that? The article is describing tests and events that happened long before Y2K so how could it be related? Also, the "time" they are talking about is relative timing between triple modular redundant (TMR) systems. These are not absolute calendar times so they don't care about years, centuries, leap days, etc. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think this supports your so called theory.

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 09, 2000.

Mr Bird-- It is an explicit lie that the NTSB kills people helping them discover the truth about a crash. It is a lie that they cover up the "real" reason for crashes for the sake of money invested by TPTB.

And you have PROOF that these are lies, of course?

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

Jeff,

Hawk is certainly entitled to his opinions, and if he wants to formulate a theory, it's up to him. IMO, however, it is not wise to present a 'theory' in such a manner. It would have served him best to say..."I *believe* it *may* be, etc. etc., and then put the topic up for debate or input. Providing credible sources is essential for a postulation of this magnitude. I always appreciate a well thought out analysis, but I do not agree with the method in which Hawk presented his observations.

I am not an expert in this area, and I have no opinion about the crash, although, I do have an interest in collecting information related to items in the news during the year 2000. The 'perception' of the public related to this news is also of interest to me. A wrong perception of a situation can arise from conflicting information. This can create confusion and it is not uncommon to find 'fear' and 'doubt' somewhere in the mix when you have this recipe.

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), February 09, 2000.

Posted from another thread:

<<< -- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 09, 2000.>>>>link

I think this does a lot for your credibility Hawk. Way to go.

PS... I guess the sysops must have missed this one, hmm

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), February 09, 2000.

Since when did you care about "proof"? What "proof" does Hawk have for anything he has written?

Go back and read his post again, moron. But you'll just deny the proof, just as you deny that Y2K problems exist at all.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

If you all wouldn't get so angry and name call so much, we could discuss this civilly. Once tempers start to fly this way, who wants to talk (not I). I know you can be nice I'mso--and intelligent--so please try not to be so hot under the collar. You too, Hawk.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 09, 2000.

The "Truth of Flight 261" and it's responses is one of the funnier threads I have read on this site.

It's too bad that the NTSB wastes so much money painstakingly visiting crash sites, collecting and looking at wreckage, salvaging black boxes and looking at flight data and taking over a year to investigate a crash when it can hop over to the internet and read a 400+ word discourse on how the crash occurred from a non-expert (It even had a neat little picture, too).

Even though other posters cited sites and graphs that shows that this past January's airline accidents fell in-line (or maybe even less) with accidents in past months, rampant speculation and attributions to Y2K continue. Rarely is a baseline of historical data used at TB2000. Selective perception is at work on this forum, as it always is. Last year, before the rollover, it was chemical spills and changes in upper management of large corporations that were hints at the seriousness of Y2K.

People tend to grab on to disasters or accidents, post them here, and unless there is incontrovertible evidence that the problem is not Y2K, it is considered so. If the facts are uncertain, then conspiracy is involved. A lot of people have invested an inordinate time on the internet and on Y2K. They need some validation for their efforts. At the very least, at the end of the day, they can say about a particular accident "They are not saying that it was caused by Y2K, but I know that they are lying."

There is no credibility or accountability on this forum. When someone is wrong their assertions simply fade away or are swept under the rug. When they are taken to task, they attempt to put the burden of proof on the questioner. Rarely does the burden of proof fall upon the shoulders of the person making the allegations, as it should. That's how it generally works in the real world, but not here.

Posts like Hawk's kill the credibility of this forum. The fact is, as a whole, people have been wrong here on a consistent basis. (Ed Yourdon himself was grossly wrong, beginning last April, and made plenty of money off of a best-selling book while scaring the hell out of many people, making it sound like he had a grasp on the banking, telecom, and energy industries along with his junior economist daughter. Of course, he wasn't called out on the carpet here, only hailed as a hero). Just go back and look at the old threads. While posters at TB2000 run around charging that the mainstream media is rife with lies and misinformation, one need only to look at this forum over the past year to see the lack of quality information, twists of the truth, and misinformation, as well as opinions taken as fact that have occurred here. On the whole, TB2000 makes the mainstream media look good.

Unfortunately, several celebrities over the past several weeks have met untimely deaths or uncommon problems . Professional athletes Derrick Thomas and Bobby Phills were killed in auto accidents. Football player Ray Lewis was charged with murder, the second time an active NFL player was charged with murder (The first was Rae Carruth in December of 1999). Can we attribute these to Y2K also? Might as well. They meet the criteria: 1. A perceived amount of inordinate occurences, and 2. No evidence proving that it wasn't caused by a Y2k problem

-- CJS (CJS@noemail.com), February 09, 2000.

It's amazing to watch pollys like CJS screeching when they discover that Y2K problems are becoming more and more prevalent. Yes, we're all soooooo bad here at TB2000. It's all OUR fault, isn't it?? Funny how you just HAVE to say that NOW when it's becoming so much clearer just how serious the Y2K problems REALLY are.

Maybe you're just feeling guilty.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

Go back and read his post again, moron.

I've read it several times and there is not a shred of "proof" in it -- it is all supposition and conjecture. Give me one example of a proof statement that the Alaskan Air crash was definitely caused by a Y2K problem. You can't and neither can Hawk. Hawk even admits it in his pre-emptive reply when he says essentially "I've written what I've written and none of youo can prove me wrong because the plane is at the bottom of the ocean."

You may not understand it but this is not "proof" of anything. And the lack of "proof" to the contrary does not make the original statement anymore of a fact. You can make any statement you want and challenge people to prove you wrong. If they don't, that doesn't prove you are correct, just that there is insufficient data to prove it one way or the other. And that is exactly what we have here -- insufficient data for anyone -- including a professional investigative organization like the NTSB and especially and amateur conspiracy theorist like Hawk -- from concluding anything with absolute certainty.

Like I said above, try to prove the statement I made about you is incorrect. You can't, so does that make it a fact? Of course not! Hawk has taken a bunch of miscellaneous information, much of it not related to the MD-80 at all, and created the impression of being a ruthless fact finder. All he has done, in fact, is to make a supposition and search for any shred of evidence that might support it and conveniently ignore anything that might not support it.

But you'll just deny the proof, just as you deny that Y2K problems exist at all.

Why would you conclude that? I have never denied that Y2K problems existed and in fact spent 18 months working on those very issues. If there are facts to support his assertion, let him produce them. Look at my post to him above where he is obviously incorrect about the timing issue being Y2K related. Now, who is denying what?

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 09, 2000.

Hey Imso and other Pollies...

Isn't the Jr. High computer lab closing soon... better take your parting shots before they kick you out.

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), February 09, 2000.

I've read it several times and there is not a shred of "proof" in it

No, of course you can't see any because you're in denial like a typical polly. Either that, or you're just a moron. It's always hard to tell with pollys.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

CJS, you wrote Posts like Hawk's kill the credibility of this forum. Ive seen credibility and this forum never had any to begin with. Hawk is hardly unique with his deranged take on certain issues and life in general. If you insist on visiting this forum you must recognize the mind set of the regular posters. Try not to get upset with some of the outlandish theories that are brought forth, just let yourself be entertained. And please relax, people like Hawk rarely get out of the house and should be considered harmless.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), February 09, 2000.

Mr. Sane & IMSO; I am not sure how to say this... but I'll give it whirl... Who is your favorite president? ...and what part of TimeBomb2000 is agreeable to your vile tastes? I don't real trust people like you...because you get things confused when they need to remain clear and simple... HAWK and many caring people visit this site to toss things around to see if we can solve some very critical problems...and the last thing we need on this forum is terrorists like you coming into here and destroying years of compassion and struggle for the right things to do for our friend and families... I was going to tell you to "keep flying for the world really could do without your kind..." but that would be coming down to your level and taking my focus from what we are trying to do on this forum...sure it is your right to free speech... but it is our GOD given right to tell you we don't need this kind of contribution to this forum...some of us have lost friends in these so-called compliant aircraft and many more will share our grief in the future if we can't figure this out... Mr. SANE and IMSO, get out here and leave us alone...we need to work together on this site...and we don't need your troublesome attitude... I'll pray for you and hope that you and yours do not become casualties of your own ignorance! BRyan

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 09, 2000.

Good job Jeff,

The fact is that you perceive Y2K problems are becoming more prevalent for the reasons that I gave in my post. You are tuned into problems and are attributing them to Y2k. You probably never paid attention to such problems in the past, but you are now. Not only that, but this forum provides an environment that supports your thinking. Hell, yesterday someone posted a plane crash that occurred between two small planes in Illinois that at this point has zero to do with Y2k and appears to have been caused by a student pilot being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a big deal in Chicago because a very well known radio personality was killed in the accident.

Now, what is your rationale that shows how it is "becoming clearer how serious Y2K problems really are". More conjecture? How about some specific examples with a little bit of support. Is it an increase in airline accidents? Data from the NTSB suggests that that is not the case (www.ntsb.gov/aviation.aviation.htm), although this is only one source.

When Payne Stewart's plane crash occurred, a rash of other problems with small jets was highlighted in the news. Similarly, several years ago when the strep-related "flesh-eating disease" (necrotizing fascitis) got into the news, cases were reported in the paper on a weekly basis for a period and 20/20 or some news program did a story on it. The fact was that cases of the disease hadn't substantially increased, only that it was spotlighted to the American public. Cases of this are still diagnosed every day, but the disease is out of the spotlight now.

The fact is that if you look for problems, you will find them, and then attribute what you want to them.

By the way, why in the hell should I feel guilty?

-- CJS (CJS@noemail.com), February 09, 2000.

No, of course you can't see any because you're in denial like a typical polly. Either that, or you're just a moron. It's always hard to tell with pollys.

Brilliant response! You have nothing substantial to say and you are unable to refute anything I wrote so you say I am in denial and a moron. Classic! Maybe I was wrong about something I said above. Maybe you really ARE a 13 year old! BTW, what's the DD stand for - Double Digit IQ maybe?

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), February 09, 2000.

JeffDD--

Other than no dead bodies, and no-one claiming murder, and no shred of evidence suggesting it, and no suspicion of any wrong-doing, and no witnesses, and no whispers, and no credible motive, and no indication that the people on the NTSB are anything but conscientious, caring, careful investigators, how does one "prove" they didn't kill anyone?

Does it start to register why the "pollies" who post here think so many of you are fruitcakes?

BTW, the central issue I raised is not whether or not the plane crash was Y2K-related--if the NTSB says it was, I'll accept that and thank them. If it is, they certainly WILL say so, and I'm fine with that. I don't pretend to be omniscient. What Mr Hawk is doing that is so destructive is jumping to a conclusion, refusing to consider careful, scientific differential diagnoses of the problem, posting his opinion as fact, and accusing the NTSB of covering up the truth and killing those who disagree.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped.com), February 09, 2000.

Jeff-

How couldn't pollies be in denial? Going back to last year, most everything that so many of you vehemently posted about and said would happen hasn't (like Jim Lord and Mr. CEO), and you guys rarely support your allegations. Really, why should people believe what you guys say here, especially given Hawk's irresponsible posting?

-- (cjs@noemail.com), February 09, 2000.

There go the pollys, screeching their denial again. "It just can't be true, it just can't!!" Sorry, pollys, but it is. And you'll just have to deal with it. You're not doing a very good job of it so far.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

Heeeee heeee heeee heee, gaaaawd you pollys sure are dumb! You don't even know the difference between truth and facts. The facts are not available to John Q. Public, they have already been stolen by the NTSB and locked up in their little sealed labs. The facts, for all practical purposes, no longer exist. They are in the process of being misinterpreted, altered, and distorted as we speak.

The truth is available to anyone who digs deep enough to find it. This is my conclusion of what I consider to be the truth at this point in time. You can like it or leave it, I don't care, but so far I haven't seen anyone produce a more logical explanation. Don't forget the high frequency of similar incidents within the last week.

I never said the NTSB would kill anyone, they'd probably just call someone at the CIA. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 09, 2000.

Lots of wasted bandwidth. Doomers won't change their minds and pollies don't have minds to change. What's that childrens movie, "The Never Ending Story"?

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), February 09, 2000.

I am reluctant to enter this discussion as I have never taken the position of doomer or polly. However, there is to much at stake here for me not to speak out.

This is the greatest forum in existence providing world-wide coverage of events which "may" or "may not" effect our individual lives. No media has provided such a wealth of information, gathered in one place, as has this forum. There is life here, both doomer and polly, for that very reason. This puts us in a unique situation. Any writings posted for the world to see, must, by the influence generated here, be based upon facts assimilated through investigative research.

It now appears HAWK did some research that may have valitity on the stabilizer operations of the MD83, yet this does not justify proof as he stated. IMO, Boeing is must more knowledgeable in the operation of this respected airliner, and would be the first to issue a safty warning. I am not a conspiracy theorist, and will await further proof.

The Internet is growing by leaps and bounds bringing the world together in ways beyond our wildest imaginations. It will serve as a catalyst to influence decisions in business, gov't, even our National elections. The words one enters here must serve to enrich knowledge based upon the facts gathered, not assumptions stated as absolutes. In this, Hawk errored.

I must say in Hawks defense, I have suspicions and unanswered questions regarding Y2K. These remain unsubstantuated doubts. However, to state such as facts, would for me be the height of folly.

Tommy...

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), February 09, 2000.

Hawk-

You hardly dug for any facts. You merely threw down some information on the web and created you're version of the truth. Nothing special, really. I'm glad that you have so much insight on the inner workings of the NTSB. Apparently you have a lot of experience with them.

I think its cute how you automatically say that they are liars and that the "facts" no longer exist. I guess that only leaves your facts.

Jeff-

What the hell are you talking about? Why don't you show us how what you say is true?

CJS

-- CJS (CJS@noemail.com), February 09, 2000.

CJS, maybe it's time you stopped screeching and crawled back under your rock. You've trolled on this thread long enough.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

Jeff-

When are you going to answer a question rather than talk about people screeching? I think that you've been doing that long enough.

I guess it is enough for you to rely on the opinions of strangers on the internet and see them as fact.

-- CJS (CJS@noemail.com), February 09, 2000.

When are you going to answer a question rather than talk about people screeching?

Hawk gave you all the answers you need, but you're obviously too stupid to understand them.

I guess it is enough for you to rely on the opinions of strangers on the internet and see them as fact.

I guess it is enough for you to stick your head in the sand and pretend these Y2K problems don't exist.

Go home, polly troll.

-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 09, 2000.

Jeff-

Is Hawk an expert on this subject? Are his answers something that you would rely on? What data has he collected from the crash or does he have access to that would allow him to come to any conclusion, be it Y2K or not.

The things that you are saying are so inane that I don't believe that you are serious. You've got to be goofing around or under 15 years old.

Go back and read Hawk's original post if you get a chance. There is some pretty decent discourse there that refutes his position.

The bottom line is that in Hawk's mind, he is in the "no-lose" position. He has already discounted any subsequent NTSB findings as lies and distortions of the facts. That leaves pretty much his own opinion, which he considers to be fact. You appear to subscribe to that scheme as well, you independent thinker you.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 09, 2000.

Chicken-not-a-hawk is living proof that a collection of facts alone is not knowledge. No chance that he'll advance to the stage where he'll demonstrate that knowledge alone is not wisdom.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 09, 2000.

Everyone's missing the main point - diehard 3 Stooges (Bill, Hillary & Al) lover Hawk actually admitted the Clintoon adminasstration lies to the public and kills people who tell the truth. Congratulations Hawkie, it takes a big bird to admit it's been wrong.

-- rebel (with@ina.cause), February 09, 2000.

Thanks for the replies.

It is insightful, but sobering, to see so many pro-Hawk posters let stand an unsupported assertion that the NTSB are murderers. I would also be shaking in a bunker at forty feet if this were my world view, I must admit.

Nadine, I do not believe Mr Hawk should be entitled to express a destructive opinion about our investigative bodies killing our citizens without providing substantive evidence--leastways, I will do my damndest to limit the damage.

Mara, thank you for the reminder to be nice. Somehow it does not seem to apply to savages such as Mr Hawk, who in the interest of preserving their argument are willing to fabricate and malign. If you were Mr Hall's family, and saw him agonize over this crash; saw him painfully work toward an honest conclusion, and saw him attacked in this manner, would you be so sanguine about the benefits of gentle discourse? IMHO, there is little that is likely to make an impact on Mr Hawk's ilk other than brute force.

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 09, 2000.

"IMHO, there is little that is likely to make an impact on Mr Hawk's ilk other than brute force."

Is that a threat Mr. Imso Naive?

Sounds to me like you are confirming the fact that government organizations use brute force and take people out if necessary to achieve an effective coverup.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 09, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk and Jeff- You guys are really something. For the past week Hawk is trying to put his model of the MD-80 together with hobby glue after somebody sat on his P-51 and broke it, and now Jeff is stroking him to make him feel better. ROTFLMAO You two guys are acting like a couple of rump rangers!

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 09, 2000.

"IMHO, there is little that is likely to make an impact on Mr Hawk's ilk other than brute force." (ImSo) "Is that a threat Mr. Imso Naive? Sounds to me like you are confirming the fact that government organizations use brute force and take people out if necessary to achieve an effective coverup." (Hawk)

I am certain it does sound like a threat to you, Mr Hawk, and I believe you when you say my "brute force" comment sounds to you like a confirmation that government will "take people out..."

Actually, though, I was speaking about the brute force of language, as opposed to the gentle argumentation the poster was encouraging. You, Mr Hawk, live inside a paranoid worldview that is unlikely to understand that. It is not likely you will be able to change that, and I am not interested in helping you do so; only in limiting the collateral damage your wretched invective has.

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 10, 2000.

Brute force of words?? LOL!!!

Why doesn't that suprise me! First you claim to be saving everyone else from my outrageous words. Then you make a threat and back down when I call you on it. You're a fucking wussy. It's been known for decades that the government kills people and covers up their scandalous and corrupt actions. Welcome to reality. There are thousands of sites on the Internet explaining TWA 800 and Egypt Air 990, why don't you go over there and cry.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 10, 2000.

Res ipsa loquitor.

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 10, 2000.

Hey there-Hawk- I think I just figured out what keeps you going all day on this subject. The other night you gave me a lesson on how to be a real potty mouth and you used the word masturbation. And I noticed on another post today that you have used that word again. You seem to be preoccupied with the concept of self gratification and if you are sitting at your computer getting off on selective thoughts and seeing your word in print with all these threads acclaiming you as their favorite idiot or hero, I would bet a bag of doughnuts that you are actually choking a blue veiner at this very moment.

-- Liberal Hater (liberty@bell.com), February 10, 2000.

"Opinions are like farts: only your own smell sweet."

--- Paraphrased from: James P. Hogan, Voyage From Yesteryear. 1984, A Del Ray Book, Ballantine Books.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), February 10, 2000.

FWIW, I just watched "Waco, The Rules of Engagement" for the first time tonight. I'm so angry it's going to take a while for me to calm down. Anybody who doesn't realize that this country is run by a bunch of supreme, pompous, full of themselves, idiot, thugs always trying to cover their dirty butts needs to get a clue.

I don't believe anything I hear (or read) from the press or the government because they have too much of an agenda they are always pushing and they are always covering their deriere's. I don't always agree with Hawk but at least he's asking the questions. That's more than I can say for the lap-dog press. I think there are enough people on this forum with the background to effectively evaluate any statements or conclusions any one of us make, however "rash".

If you think someones' conclusions are "rash" why not address the conclusion instead of launching a full on attack on the individual. We have well founded reason to distrust the official conclusions being fed to us by TPTB. If you are a troll, well that's a different story. ...sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), February 10, 2000.

FWIW, I watched WacoTROE several months ago. It hurt to think of the babies and children Bill and Janet murdered. But, their job is to facilitate the murder of babies.

Angry? No, what's the point. Anger or action won't change it. It CANNOT be changed. History is always repeated.

Ooops, on second thought I realized this is the New Economy based on computer chips. Everything will be just fine this time around. Now I am angry because I don't have money in Amazon and Yahoo. Yep, that is the key to happiness and everlasting bliss into the New Age Millennium Stock Market Democracy Peace At Last It Is Finally Here We Made It New World Order Age of Aquarius Perfection of Humanity and Higher Consciousness Black is White and White is Black It Can Only Get Better Up Up and Away Man on Mars Then Jupiter And Finally Into Godhood....well, we are already our own gods....sorry forgot;-)

-- Kyle (midtnbuddy@juno.com), February 10, 2000.