Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (33603)	10/17/2001 9:33:27 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I can't find any stories on convictions of assault for spitting. Did find this, from Australia: REUTERS SYDNEY — While not quite a case of assault with a deadly vegetable, an Australian man has been convicted of breathing on a policeman after chewing garlic. The media reported on Friday that Jeff Pearce was convicted of assault in a Perth court after admitting he had deliberately chewed a clove of garlic and then breathed in a policeman’s face after being pulled over for a traffic offence. Perth magistrate Peter Micheledes stressed in convicting Pearce in a Western Australia court that he did not intend to deter garlic lovers but was applying the law. A section of the local criminal code defines assault as the direct or indirect application of force, including gas or odour, in such a manner as to cause personal discomfort. Pearce told the court that a friend had told him the best way to repel police was to chew garlic and breathe on them. Following the advice Pearce kept a clove of garlic on the dashboard of his car for just such an occasion. But when Pearce was pulled over by police for a smoking exhaust, despite chewing the garlic, he was arrested for drunk-driving. He was later charged with assaulting constable Darren Horn, who told the court he had endured jibes such as “a clove a day keeps the coppers away.” -- Assault by speech.

To: gao seng who wrote (33603)	10/17/2001 9:55:17 AM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 82486

Oops - not vipers, vulcans. Two 20-mm Vulcan rotary cannons @ 7,200 rounds per minute. Two 40-mm Bofors gun @ 100 rounds per minute. 1 105-mm Howitzer fires 44 lb shells at 10 rounds per minute. Optional, 7.62 mm miniguns. This Reuters graphic shows the AC-130 gunship, one of the most devastating U.S. air weapons, and its weapons and key specifications. (Reuters Graphic) news.yahoo.com

To: gao seng who wrote (33603)	10/17/2001 12:07:20 PM
From: Michael M	Respond to of 82486

I stand corrected - sort of. The current "spooky" is "spooky II" I believe, an official USAF name for the C-130U - latest model. I have no idea what the current call sign is. Call signs and various, somewhat profane names born on flight lines and in bars, generally take precedence over "official" names. I suspect someone could write a book about the air war in Southeast Asia using only call signs to refer to aircraft that would be more informative (to those who were there) than official aircraft names. You probably knew that. From the link, it looks like the people who fly them might be calling the newest models U-Boats. No doubt Pentagon briefers would avoid that designation. It's probably on the list of words to never use, along with crusade. In case you haven't come across it - theaviationzone.com I enjoy reading your stuff. Press on.