Plimer and Silicon Chip

[Dyna Soar]

John - Melb wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:06 pm, John - Melb wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:28 am, "Dyna Soar"wrote:
John - Melb wrote:

And none of the other precious darlings on aus.electronics seem to
have a problem with it ?

I have a problem with any off-topic postings, but don't have the
paranoia about it that you do.

While do you even bother reading this group when you make
absolutely no posts about electronics? We know the answer, of
course, it's your obsession with Wilson. I have news for you, he
just ain't worth it.

Why do other posters on aus.electronics not have a problem with
Trivial Trevor's O/T anti-gun and anti-gunowner rants, but go feral
when an alternative viewpoint appears?

I'm sure many have a problem with both anti-gun or pro-gun viewpoints in
this group. I know I do. Perhaps they're not as vocal.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one too........

Perhaps in your own mind.

----------------------------------------------------------
Hey Dyna, from APG
On Sep 26, 10:28 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:45 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

Put it somewhere else trevor, otherwise you'll have your alter ego
and
his little mates from APG swarming all over the place again.-

Sorry Keefy, too late.

It's interesting to note that Keefy isn't concerned about Trevor's
anti-gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, he's concerned that an
alternative viewpoint may appear.

Jeezus, that old post just further proves your paranoia with Wilson. (I
think I said so at the time)

Keithr suggested Wilson post his gun stuff "somewhere else". No where did
he either say he approved or disapproved of Wilson's "anti-gun rants
appearing on aus.electronics", yet you've jumped to one conclusion.

Your obsession makes you read whatever turns your paranoia on, irrespective
if it is what is written.


--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Dyna Soar wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Dyna Soar wrote:

Your actions remind me why we here in Australia call Americans
"Seppos". Seppo (short for Septic Tanks) is rhyming slang for Yanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyming_slang
The term fits you to a tee because, like a septic tank, you're full
of piss and shit!

Yawn. Sloman is a joke on the other electronics newsgroups.

Whatever, you're still full of piss and shit.

I bet you say that to all the boys. ;-)


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Terrell is a right-wing brown-nose on sci.electronics.design. The
people whom he brown-noses don't like factual corrections either, so
they aren't fond of me, and Mike parrots some of their sillier claims.

Bill posts common knowledge, while pretending that its a closely held
state secret.

He is an unemployable old loser with a huge chip on his shoulder.

He claims that he couldn't find work because of his age, but no one
wants to hire an inflamed asshole. So, he lived on "Unemployment", and
his wife's income.

He is a moron who thinks he has some say about how other countries
should be run, and pays tithes to the church of AGW and the Anti-Gun
lobby.

He thinks the sun shines out of his ass, but its just another load.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

terryc wrote:

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:55:15 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tell me, Phil. How may missions did you fly for the Russians in
WW-II? If zero, you have no clue as to what the pilots thought of the
planes they flew.

Wow, you claim to have talked to old Russian pilots now.

Where did I say that? Are you on the same drugs as Phil?


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

KR wrote:

On Oct 12, 8:05 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

news:4ad161a7$0$3253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...



"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:haou2p$5ip$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Your politicians have effectively disarmed the populace!!!!!!!! Silly
buggers.

Single shot rifles are no match for nuclear weapons in any case.

**Nor is anything in the hands of the most rapid gun nutter. American gun
nutters fail to recognise this simple point. Against the most ancient
technology, still in active service in the US military (B-52 Bombers - ca
1952), civilans have zero defence. Hell, even some very well equipped
military forces have no defence against them.

Guns, in the hands of civilians are simply no match for a well equipped,
well trained military force.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

No, but they can make a big difference to any survivors for self
defense, if law and order breaks down, and / or enemy ground forces
try to invade what is left.

Then again, if you nuke something, its debatable as to what is left.

One of the few things that survived the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima was
an American made Mosler safe. After the war, the bank that owned it
flew a tech over from the US to open it, and change the combination.


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

terryc wrote:

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:13:19 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

terryc wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:26:13 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Oh, you want me to point to "the truth" as written by the USA armed
forces? Hell, even your own WWII veteran piss all over "the official
history".

Have you ever talked to any US W.W.II Veterans?

Yes, that is why I could make the comment.

Once again, you snipped most of the message.

Shrug, you asked a question and I replied. Is "english" not your first
language or didn't they teach you any basic sentence construction?

Yet another lame attempt at misdirection. YAwnnn...


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[Dyna Soar]

John - Melb wrote:

"Dyna Soar" wrote:
John - Melb wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:06 pm, John - Melb wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:28 am, "Dyna Soar"wrote:
John - Melb wrote:

And none of the other precious darlings on aus.electronics seem
to have a problem with it ?
I have a problem with any off-topic postings, but don't have the
paranoia about it that you do.
While do you even bother reading this group when you make
absolutely no posts about electronics? We know the answer, of
course, it's your obsession with Wilson. I have news for you, he
just ain't worth it.
Why do other posters on aus.electronics not have a problem with
Trivial Trevor's O/T anti-gun and anti-gunowner rants, but go feral
when an alternative viewpoint appears?

I'm sure many have a problem with both anti-gun or pro-gun
viewpoints in this group. I know I do. Perhaps they're not as vocal.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one too........

Perhaps in your own mind.

----------------------------------------------------------
Hey Dyna, from APG
On Sep 26, 10:28 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:45 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
Put it somewhere else trevor, otherwise you'll have your alter ego
and
his little mates from APG swarming all over the place again.-
Sorry Keefy, too late.
It's interesting to note that Keefy isn't concerned about Trevor's
anti-gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, he's concerned that an
alternative viewpoint may appear.

Jeezus, that old post just further proves your paranoia with Wilson.
(I think I said so at the time)

Keithr suggested Wilson post his gun stuff "somewhere else". No
where did he either say he approved or disapproved of Wilson's
"anti-gun rants appearing on aus.electronics", yet you've jumped to
one conclusion.

Why did keithr want Trevor to take his "gun stuff" somewhere else?

Answer - "otherwise you'll have your alter ego and
his little mates from APG swarming all over the place again."

Yes, so? You're saying that is not what happens?

I'll note that no-one here challenged Trevor previous anti-gun rants
on aus.electronics, but were most upset at an alternative viewpoint
being posted.

Your obsession makes you read whatever turns your paranoia on,
irrespective if it is what is written.

You've challenged me a number of times about responding to Trevor's
anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, have you ever challenged Trevor
about posting them here in the first place ?

Not sure if I have in this group, but I definitely have in others.
Actually, I regard Wilson as a complete nutter and no longer respond to any
of his posts. Why don't you do the same?


--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

 

[Dyna Soar]

John - Melb wrote:

"Dyna Soar" wrote..

You've challenged me a number of times about responding to Trevor's
anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, have you ever challenged Trevor
about posting them here in the first place ?

Not sure if I have in this group, but I definitely have in others.

So you're not sure if you've ever challenged Trevor about his O/T
anti- gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, but you've challenged
me about countering them a number of times............Hmmm?

Can't you read English? I have challenged him before, but I'm not sure if
on this group. Anyway, I no longer respond to any of his posts, just as
this will be the last time I respond to your paranoia. The two of you are
so alike with your obsessions.

Actually, I regard Wilson as a complete nutter and no longer respond
to any of his posts. Why don't you do the same?

Yes, I guess you'd like to see Trevor's anti-gun bile be posted
without ever being challenged.

Bloody Hell, you're obsessing again, where did I state that? I'd prefer if
Wilson just pissed off. Just as I'd prefer you to piss off, too. However,
this is Usenet and, to quote Roddles, each of us get no say in where and
what another posts. I do have a say, though, as to whom I respond. From
now on you're not one of them. Go sit in the corner with Wilson.

Bye, now go beat up a prisoner or something, perhaps that will vent your
frustrations.


--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-10-10, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-10-09, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

So, you are a greedy, ungrateful bastard. It was supplied, at cost to
Allied nations. Our entire manufacturing infrastructure was converted
to the war effort, and millions of American citizens did with what they
needed, to make sure the military of Allied nations got the supplies
they needed. No new tires, very little gasoline. Food rationing, very
few new clothes, shoes or other items available, because the raw
materials were diverted to the war. Then most of the 'Allies'
conveniently forgot to pay for their share of the cost for freedom.

I can't say that that would have impressed any of those who were
actually doing the fighting

The you don't seem to get is the other allies made greater sacrifices.

Cites? Show proof.

USA 0.32% killed
UK 0.94%
NZ 0.73%
AUS 0.57%
Canada 0.4%
India 0.43%
China ~2-3%
USSR 14.18%
Poland 16%

Total = 35.57 to 36.57% Where are the rest?


The number of people killed, while very important wasn't all the
sacrifices made. How about all the people rounded up and executed or
held in prison camps? Civilians who died because their only local
doctor was overseas, or medicines were not available? How about all the
military who survived, but were disabled? Missing limbs, eyes, or
suffered gut wounds that only let them eat a tablespoon of food at a
time? Ones who lost their hearing, or the ability to breath without an
oxygen tank? Returning military who lost everything they owned, and
came home penniless, only to be told the government couldn't and
wouldn't honor the promises made when they enlisted, or were drafted?
Having the president order the military to shoot Veterans who refused to
leave the capital? Read up on "The Bonus Army".

http://www.dav.org/about/History.aspx


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

[John - Melb]

On Oct 13, 12:36 pm, "Dyna Soar"
<dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote:

John - Melb wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:06 pm, John - Melb  wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:28 am, "Dyna Soar"wrote:
John - Melb wrote:
And none of the other precious darlings on aus.electronics seem to
have a problem with it ?
I have a problem with any off-topic postings, but don't have the
paranoia about it that you do.
While do you even bother reading this group when you make
absolutely no posts about electronics? We know the answer, of
course, it's your obsession with Wilson. I have news for you, he
just ain't worth it.
Why do other posters on aus.electronics not have a problem with
Trivial Trevor's O/T anti-gun and anti-gunowner rants, but go feral
when an alternative viewpoint appears?

I'm sure many have a problem with both anti-gun or pro-gun viewpoints in
this group.  I know I do.  Perhaps they're not as vocal.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one too........

Perhaps in your own mind.

----------------------------------------------------------
Hey Dyna, from APG
On Sep 26, 10:28 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:45 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
Put it somewhere else trevor, otherwise you'll have your alter ego
and
his little mates from APG swarming all over the place again.-
Sorry Keefy, too late.
It's interesting to note that Keefy isn't concerned about Trevor's
anti-gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, he's concerned that an
alternative viewpoint may appear.

Jeezus, that old post just further proves your paranoia with Wilson.  (I
think I said so at the time)

Keithr suggested Wilson post his gun stuff "somewhere else".  No where did
he either say he approved or disapproved of Wilson's "anti-gun rants
appearing on aus.electronics", yet you've jumped to one conclusion.

Why did keithr want Trevor to take his "gun stuff" somewhere else?

Answer - "otherwise you'll have your alter ego and
his little mates from APG swarming all over the place again."

I'll note that no-one here challenged Trevor previous anti-gun rants
on aus.electronics, but were most upset at an alternative viewpoint
being posted.

Your obsession makes you read whatever turns your paranoia on, irrespective
if it is what is written.

You've challenged me a number of times about responding to Trevor's

anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, have you ever challenged Trevor
about posting them here in the first place ?

--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

 

[John - Melb]

On Oct 13, 1:32 pm, "Dyna Soar"
<dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote:

John - Melb wrote:
 "Dyna  Soar" wrote:
John - Melb wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:06 pm, John - Melb wrote:
On Oct 13, 11:28 am, "Dyna Soar"wrote:
John - Melb wrote:
And none of the other precious darlings on aus.electronics seem
to have a problem with it ?
I have a problem with any off-topic postings, but don't have the
paranoia about it that you do.
While do you even bother reading this group when you make
absolutely no posts about electronics? We know the answer, of
course, it's your obsession with Wilson. I have news for you, he
just ain't worth it.
Why do other posters on aus.electronics not have a problem with
Trivial Trevor's O/T anti-gun and anti-gunowner rants, but go feral
when an alternative viewpoint appears?
I'm sure many have a problem with both anti-gun or pro-gun
viewpoints in this group. I know I do. Perhaps they're not as vocal.
I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one too........
Perhaps in your own mind.
----------------------------------------------------------
Hey Dyna, from APG
On Sep 26, 10:28 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:45 pm, keithr <ke...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
Put it somewhere else trevor, otherwise you'll have your alter ego
and
his little mates from APG swarming all over the place again.-
Sorry Keefy, too late.
It's interesting to note that Keefy isn't concerned about Trevor's
anti-gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, he's concerned that an
alternative viewpoint may appear.
Jeezus, that old post just further proves your paranoia with Wilson.
(I think I said so at the time)
Keithr suggested Wilson post his gun stuff "somewhere else". No
where did he either say he approved or disapproved of Wilson's
"anti-gun rants appearing on aus.electronics", yet you've jumped to
one conclusion.
Why did keithr want Trevor to take his "gun stuff" somewhere else?
Answer - "otherwise you'll have your alter ego and
his little mates from APG swarming all over the place again."

Yes, so?  You're saying that is not what happens?

I'm saying the only reason Keithr had for complaining about Trevor's O/
T anti-gun rants was that he didn't want to see an alternative
viewpoint being posted.

I'll note that no-one here challenged Trevor previous anti-gun rants
on aus.electronics, but were most upset at an alternative viewpoint
being posted.
Your obsession makes you read whatever turns your paranoia on,
irrespective if it is what is written.
You've challenged me a number of times about responding to Trevor's
anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, have you ever challenged Trevor
about posting them here in the first place ?

Not sure if I have in this group, but I definitely have in others.

So you're not sure if you've ever challenged Trevor about his O/T anti-
gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, but you've challenged me about
countering them a number of times............Hmmm?

Actually, I regard Wilson as a complete nutter and no longer respond to any
of his posts.  Why don't you do the same?

Yes, I guess you'd like to see Trevor's anti-gun bile be posted
without ever being challenged.

 

[John - Melb]

On Oct 13, 2:06 pm, "Dyna Soar"
<dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote:

John - Melb wrote:
 "Dyna  Soar" wrote..
You've challenged me a number of times about responding to Trevor's
anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, have you ever challenged Trevor
about posting them here in the first place ?
Not sure if I have in this group, but I definitely have in others.
So you're not sure if you've ever challenged Trevor about his O/T
anti- gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, but you've challenged
me about countering them a number of times............Hmmm?

Can't you read English?  I have challenged him before, but I'm not sure if
on this group.  Anyway, I no longer respond to any of his posts, just as
this will be the last time I respond to your paranoia.  The two of you are
so alike with your obsessions.

Like I said, you're not sure if you've ever challenged his O/T posts
HERE, but you've challenged me a number of times.

Actually, I regard Wilson as a complete nutter and no longer respond
to any of his posts. Why don't you do the same?
Yes, I guess you'd like to see Trevor's anti-gun bile be posted
without ever being challenged.

Bloody Hell, you're obsessing again, where did I state that?  I'd prefer if
Wilson just pissed off.  Just as I'd prefer you to piss off, too.  However,
this is Usenet and, to quote Roddles, each of us get no say in where and
what another posts.  I do have a say, though, as to whom I respond.  From
now on you're not one of them.  Go sit in the corner with Wilson.  

Just as long as I don't respond to Trevor's anti-gun bile, right?

Bye, now go beat up a prisoner or something, perhaps that will vent your
frustrations.

Not my style at all.

 

[John - Melb]

On Oct 13, 2:14 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:06 pm, "Dyna  Soar"





dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote:
John - Melb wrote:
 "Dyna  Soar" wrote..
You've challenged me a number of times about responding to Trevor's
anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, have you ever challenged Trevor
about posting them here in the first place ?
Not sure if I have in this group, but I definitely have in others.
So you're not sure if you've ever challenged Trevor about his O/T
anti- gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, but you've challenged
me about countering them a number of times............Hmmm?

Can't you read English?  I have challenged him before, but I'm not sure if
on this group.  Anyway, I no longer respond to any of his posts, just as
this will be the last time I respond to your paranoia.  The two of you are
so alike with your obsessions.

Like I said, you're not sure if you've ever challenged his O/T posts
HERE, but you've challenged me a number of times.

Actually, I regard Wilson as a complete nutter and no longer respond
to any of his posts. Why don't you do the same?
Yes, I guess you'd like to see Trevor's anti-gun bile be posted
without ever being challenged.

Bloody Hell, you're obsessing again, where did I state that?  I'd prefer if
Wilson just pissed off.  Just as I'd prefer you to piss off, too.  However,
this is Usenet and, to quote Roddles, each of us get no say in where and
what another posts.  I do have a say, though, as to whom I respond.  From
now on you're not one of them.  Go sit in the corner with Wilson.  

But you've never told Trevor to piss off from here when he posts his O/
T rants, but you've told me to piss off a number of times?

Just as long as I don't respond to Trevor's anti-gun bile, right?

Bye, now go beat up a prisoner or something, perhaps that will vent your
frustrations.

Not my style at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[John - Melb]

On Oct 13, 2:14 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:06 pm, "Dyna  Soar"





dynasoar..REMOVE..THI...@ozdebate.com> wrote:
John - Melb wrote:
 "Dyna  Soar" wrote..
You've challenged me a number of times about responding to Trevor's
anti-gun rants on aus.electronics, have you ever challenged Trevor
about posting them here in the first place ?
Not sure if I have in this group, but I definitely have in others.
So you're not sure if you've ever challenged Trevor about his O/T
anti- gun rants appearing on aus.electronics, but you've challenged
me about countering them a number of times............Hmmm?

Can't you read English?  I have challenged him before, but I'm not sure if
on this group.  Anyway, I no longer respond to any of his posts, just as
this will be the last time I respond to your paranoia.  The two of you are
so alike with your obsessions.

Like I said, you're not sure if you've ever challenged his O/T posts
HERE, but you've challenged me a number of times.

Actually, I regard Wilson as a complete nutter and no longer respond
to any of his posts. Why don't you do the same?
Yes, I guess you'd like to see Trevor's anti-gun bile be posted
without ever being challenged.

Bloody Hell, you're obsessing again, where did I state that?  I'd prefer if
Wilson just pissed off.  Just as I'd prefer you to piss off, too.  However,
this is Usenet and, to quote Roddles, each of us get no say in where and
what another posts.  I do have a say, though, as to whom I respond.  From
now on you're not one of them.  Go sit in the corner with Wilson.  

So, because I wont roll over and let Trevor post his bile without

challenging it when and where it is posted, you're going to do a dummy
spit and not "talk" to me anymore.

What a pathetic excuse for a human being

Just as long as I don't respond to Trevor's anti-gun bile, right?

Bye, now go beat up a prisoner or something, perhaps that will vent your
frustrations.

Not my style at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Mr.T]

"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hauvhc$pkf$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

AFAIK, NZ hasn't got a defense force at all.

hasn't got much of a defense force,
no fighter planes, main battle tanks, or ships larger than frigates.

And yet no-one has invaded since the British.

Im told that its an extremely hard place to invade to start with

several thousand kilometers of sea will slow most people down,

So Australia is in no danger either then?
(Aircraft attacks on Darwin, and miniature subs in Sydney Harbour not
withstanding.)

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:hav2e0$fmd$1@news.eternal-september.org...

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:55:15 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Tell me, Phil. How may missions did you fly for the Russians in
WW-II? If zero, you have no clue as to what the pilots thought of the
planes they flew.

Wow, you claim to have talked to old Russian pilots now.

Seems to me he is only claiming Phil hasn't. In fact not even that because
he did ask.

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:05:30 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

terryc wrote:

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:55:15 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tell me, Phil. How may missions did you fly for the Russians in
WW-II? If zero, you have no clue as to what the pilots thought of
the planes they flew.

Wow, you claim to have talked to old Russian pilots now.

Where did I say that? Are you on the same drugs as Phil?

Well, it seems you are. You asked Phil if he'd ever flown for the
Russians in WWII. Was that an admission that you are talking out your
arse?

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-10-13, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-10-10, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-10-09, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

So, you are a greedy, ungrateful bastard. It was supplied, at cost to
Allied nations. Our entire manufacturing infrastructure was converted
to the war effort, and millions of American citizens did with what they
needed, to make sure the military of Allied nations got the supplies
they needed. No new tires, very little gasoline. Food rationing, very
few new clothes, shoes or other items available, because the raw
materials were diverted to the war. Then most of the 'Allies'
conveniently forgot to pay for their share of the cost for freedom.

I can't say that that would have impressed any of those who were
actually doing the fighting

The you don't seem to get is the other allies made greater sacrifices.

Cites? Show proof.

USA 0.32% killed
UK 0.94%
NZ 0.73%
AUS 0.57%
Canada 0.4%
India 0.43%
China ~2-3%
USSR 14.18%
Poland 16%

Total = 35.57 to 36.57%

that was 0.32% of USA population killed, 0.94% UK etc...

Where are the rest?

they weren't killed.

The number of people killed, while very important wasn't all the
sacrifices made. How about all the people rounded up and executed or
held in prison camps?

have you got any statistics?

Civilians who died because their only local
doctor was overseas, or medicines were not available?

everywhere had shortages and rationing.

How about all the
military who survived, but were disabled? Missing limbs, eyes, or
suffered gut wounds that only let them eat a tablespoon of food at a
time? Ones who lost their hearing, or the ability to breath without an
oxygen tank?

seems about equal to the number killed for most forces.
but significantly higher for NZ and India and slightly
lower for UK.

Returning military who lost everything they owned, and
came home penniless, only to be told the government couldn't and
wouldn't honor the promises made when they enlisted, or were drafted?
Having the president order the military to shoot Veterans who refused to
leave the capital?

sounds kind-of self inflicted.

 

[keithr]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

keithr wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
terryc wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:25:22 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:29:07 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "

The Russians, using American built planes and supplies.
** The Yanks supplied Russia with inferior fighter planes ( P39s)
that no American wanted to fly against the Japanese or Germans. Gave
a few of them to black US pilots to fly too.
Women flew them, too. Big deal.
So you are confirming that USAian males think their women are lesser
people.
See? You have to attack everything. That was not what I said.
But it is. Someone suggested the the planes SOLD, not given, to the USSR
were substandard planes in the view of white pilots, but black pilots
were still required to fly them. To which you joined they were also
"flown" by women. Now you are attempting weasel out by saying you ddn't
mean flown (as in fighting), but "flown" as in transfer flights.

The point was that they were flown by more than the Russians.
You still have to provide that evidence.

Prove that they weren't. Our pilots were trained in anything that
flew, including crop dusters to free up the best planes for use
overseas. The planes sent to Russia were a lot better than what was
used to train our pilots. Some leaned to fly in patched together
biplanes
The vast majority of WWII pilots of all nations trained in biplanes.


And you think the warplanes the US supplied were worse?

Did the US supply biplanes then? In fact it was a British biplane that
crippled the Bismarck leading to its destruction.

Heres some more info on the Russian lend-lease

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/geust/aircraft_deliveries.htm

 

[keithr]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

keithr wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell Retarded Looney "
The Russians, using American built planes and supplies.
** The Yanks supplied Russia with inferior fighter planes ( P39s) that no
American wanted to fly against the Japanese or Germans. Gave a few of
them
to black US pilots to fly too.
You think they deserved better planes?
** The Russians built and flew their own planes against the German
vasion - tens of thousand of them.

Your claims are utter crap.
What is a 'vasion'? They only buit a small percentage of the planes,
when compared to what the US supplied.
I found these figures for lend-lease items given to Russia on the
internet, accuracy not guaranteed

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Non iron metals.....................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

On that basis, the Russians built far more aircraft than the US gave them.


Russia wasn't the only country supplied though that program.

True, but thats where the majority of equipment supplied went