'Self steering' bullets being developed by Lockheed Martin.

[Zico]

"A self-guiding bullet that can steer itself towards its target is being developed for use by the US military. The bullet uses tiny fins to correct the course of its flight allowing it to hit laser-illuminated targets. It is designed to be capable of hitting objects at distances of about 2km (1.24 miles). Work on a prototype suggests that accuracy is best at longer ranges.

A think tank says the tech is well-suited to snipers, but worries about it being marketed to the public. Work on the project is being carried out by an Albuquerque-based subsidiary of defence contractor Lockheed Martin on behalf of the US government. The current prototype involves a 4in (10cm) bullet which includes an optical sensor in its nose to detect the laser. This information is then processed and used to move motors within the bullet which steer tiny fins, altering the ammunition's path. "We can make corrections 30 times per second," said researcher Red Jones. "That means we can over-correct, so we don't have to be as precise each time."
Accuracy

The team has carried out both field tests and computer simulations, and says "engineering issues" remain. However, they add that they are confident of bringing the product to market. Experts say there would be great demand for the innovation on the battlefield.

"One of the big successes in Libya was that the accuracy of the munitions used was much higher than in previous campaigns," Elizabeth Quintana, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank told the BBC. "97% of Nato's weapons hit their target to within about 2m (6.5ft). But that was achieved through air munitions. "This would be a revolution for ground forces, and may help further cut down on civilian casualties in future conflicts."

Unlike most bullets the self-guided prototype minimises spin, aiming to fly like a dart.
Prototype bullet Researchers say special gunpowder may be needed to help the bullet achieve faster speeds Normally small calibre rifle bullets are spun at over 2,000 revolutions per second to stabilise their flightpath and maximise speed. But the team's patent application notes that previous attempts to create self-guiding rapidly-spinning bullets ran into the problem that the electronics required became too complicated. To simplify things the researchers moved the bullet's centre of gravity further forward than it would normally be. When combined with the fins this caused it to only spin a few revolutions per second, making it easier to steer. Because the bullet's motion settles the longer it is in flight, the researchers say its accuracy improves at longer ranges. Tests with commercially available gunpowder have measured the bullet reaching just over twice the speed of sound (2,400ft per second), which is still below standard military speeds. But the researchers say they are confident that they can increase its velocity with customised gunpowder.
Terrorism

A press release said that: "Potential customers include the military, law enforcement and recreational shooters." That concerns some industry watchers. "The public may be uncomfortable with the implications of people being able to use this without needing to have a sight line to the target - you could see this having terrorist uses," said Ms Quintana. "There's talk of selling to recreational hunters, but I would imagine the authorities would want to limit the public's access to this kind of technology. "But it would be useful for law enforcement - particularly in hostage situations."



BBC News - Self-steering bullet researched by US weapons experts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810107)


Micro guided missles eh? I'm sctually a bit surprised its taken them this long... How long before the technology ends up in the hands of the people it was designed to be used against. They will then have to design a multi laser emitting or jamming defence system.. and so it goes on... the only winners are the defence contractors.

[Dave B]

Yay! More innocent bystanders can be killed by a coward who won't face his enemy. Hoorah for the good ol' US of A!

[Eki]

"A self-guiding bullet that can steer itself towards its target is being developed for use by the US military. The bullet uses tiny fins to correct the course of its flight allowing it to hit laser-illuminated targets.

Why do they use Finns, and why do they have to be tiny? Wouldn't micro-Owen do? Well, another flying Finn here and there won't hurt anyone.

[schmenke]

"A self-guiding bullet that can steer itself towards its target is being developed for use by the US military. ....

Good to see the U.S. taxpayer’s dollar funding something meaningful :up: :rolleyes: .

[Roamy]

this is the predecessor to the coming "cruise bullet" it will have a slower powder burn and a very extended range. The bullet head will contain explosives. This bullet should be quite good for assinations especially if they can get a 5 mile range or better.

[Malbec]

Micro guided missles eh? I'm sctually a bit surprised its taken them this long... How long before the technology ends up in the hands of the people it was designed to be used against. They will then have to design a multi laser emitting or jamming defence system.. and so it goes on... the only winners are the defence contractors.

There have been similar gadgets that have failed to make it to market despite having a lot of promise initially like the electromagnetically fired gun that had thousands of bullets already pre-loaded that had an unbelievable fire rate or the grenade launcher where the rounds could be preset to go off at a certain distance to kill enemies hiding behind cover.

The expense often makes the project unsustainable and I'll be surprised if this particular one makes it to market and is affordable for anyone bar elite services.

Not many secret weapons have made it into the hands of terrorists which is why they still rely on pretty crude WW2 era technology for the bulk of their attacks even in places like Iraq where they have been able to plunder military arsenals. SAMs are the only exception but that is because of their ubiquity. I see no reason why if this weapon becomes available it could fall into the hands of terrorists.

Thanks for sharing.http://www.castoffdebt.com/kl

[ioan]

Sounds like a very expensive bullet.
Getting better accuracy from bigger shooting distance means they should get the sniper a visit to the ophthalmologist, unless it was about moving targets.

[anthonyvop]

Like most technology it is in its early stage. Right now and for the immediate future it will be of limited capability and expensive to be almost prohibitive to deploy.

Think of Cell phones. When they first were developed few if anyone could afford them and their range and quality were horrendous. Then came Motorola and they became somewhat affordable with limited range and mediocre quality. Now "Smart" phones are accessible to huge swaths of the population and the range and quality is as good if not better than land lines and their 100+ year old technology.

BTW I rather have my tax dollars going to a project like this guided round than being toss away as subsidies to political correct/politically connected companies like Solyndra.

[Zico]

There have been similar gadgets that have failed to make it to market despite having a lot of promise initially like the electromagnetically fired gun that had thousands of bullets already pre-loaded that had an unbelievable fire rate or the grenade launcher where the rounds could be preset to go off at a certain distance to kill enemies hiding behind cover.

The expense often makes the project unsustainable and I'll be surprised if this particular one makes it to market and is affordable for anyone bar elite services.

Not many secret weapons have made it into the hands of terrorists which is why they still rely on pretty crude WW2 era technology for the bulk of their attacks even in places like Iraq where they have been able to plunder military arsenals. SAMs are the only exception but that is because of their ubiquity. I see no reason why if this weapon becomes available it could fall into the hands of terrorists.

You may be correct, I guess a lot depends on the calibers used and whether additional hardware required to be retro-fitted to existing rifles or possibly even designing new bespoke rifles to fire them... as well as circumstances. ie; a large scale conflict where circumstances might allow the enemy to obtain and copy them... the Chinese are very good at that sort of thing.

I've followed the war in Afghanistan a little and can see a lot of potential for use for something like these.. I watched a documentary following some RAF Apaches in the Southern Afghanistan, I remember one crew hovering a couple of miles out watching an insurgent bury a weapon in a field, after they had obtained permision to take him out they launched a £50k Hellfire just to take out one guy! I can see a self homing round or two like this being a tad more cost effective option in the right circumstances dont you think?

[janneppi]

I watched a documentary following some RAF Apaches in the Southern Afghanistan, I remember one crew hovering a couple of miles out watching an insurgent bury a weapon in a field, after they had obtained permision to take him out they launched a £50k Hellfire just to take out one guy! I can see a self homing round or two like this being a tad more cost effective option in the right circumstances dont you think?

They already have a pretty cost effective weapon in those helicopters, hover a bit closer and fire of a few 30mm rounds of to kill the guy in the ground

[janvanvurpa]

Y they launched a £50k Hellfire just to take out one guy! I can see a self homing round or two like this being a tad more cost effective option in the right circumstances dont you think?

Cost is no object when Freedom™ is on the line. Freedom™ isn't Free.

The diesel fuel running every truck, tank, Humvee costs around USD340 per US gallon (3,78 liter)....but you don't see anybody there worrying what it costs, THEY don't pay for it.

Why worry?

agreehttp://www.camcorderdcr.com

[Zico]

Why worry?

Yes John, sadly you are absolutely right and its probably more fun popping off a hellfire (the gunner actually called himself a "weapons whore" lol..) but individualy they should care.. aren't they also taxpayers?

Interesting fact re-the cost of the Diesel.. thats crazy!

[janvanvurpa]

Yes John, sadly you are absolutely right and its probably more fun popping off a hellfire (the gunner actually called himself a "weapons whore" lol..) but individualy they should care.. aren't they also taxpayers?

Interesting fact re-the cost of the Diesel.. thats crazy!

Follow the money........then you see who benefits from the madness.. I believe the initials are K and B and the ever ominous (R)
KBR (company) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_%28company%29)

[anthonyvop]

Follow the money........then you see who benefits from the madness.. I believe the initials are K and B and the ever ominous (R)
KBR (company) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_%28company%29)

So?

You gotta problem with somebody making money?

[janvanvurpa]

So?

You gotta problem with somebody making money?


You don't have a problem with contract let on no bid basis to 'buddies' who screw the taxpayers charging $340/gal for diesel?
You have no problem with a US Corporation setting up shell corporations in the Cayman islands expressly to avoid US Taxes?
No problem with paying KRB millions for meals not served?
No problem with a US Corporation trafficking in people?

[anthonyvop]

You don't have a problem with contract let on no bid basis to 'buddies' who screw the taxpayers charging $340/gal for diesel?

Citation?


You have no problem with a US Corporation setting up shell corporations in the Cayman islands expressly to avoid US Taxes?

One of the biggest myths spewed by the Left. The Cayman Islands is quite chummy with the IRS and gladly hands over Financial records of any company they ask for.
That being said many companies set up corporations in the Cayman Islands for the lower corporate taxes.
So?
More companies set up Corporations in Delaware because of their favorable taxes as well..Are they Evil?


No problem with paying KRB millions for meals not served?

A contractual dispute.


No problem with a US Corporation trafficking in people?

A bunch of Nepalnese who were murdered by Terrorist. Their families are contacted by some lawyers and told they can sue KBR. It isn't like they can sue the people who are really responsible for their loss....The terrorists



Tell you what.

I defy you to show me an example of any Large Corporation that isn't being sued and accused of some sort of impropriety. Just One!

[janvanvurpa]

At Vop---at, not in conversation or debate, I don't converse with people that socialize and apologize for murderers and terrorists---and brag about it.


Does the news not reach that isolated wasteland where you are holed up? No recollection of recent events? Early onset Ahlheimers, or the sun cooked the braon too much?

VOp is the worst kind of troll, the one that pretends he doesn't know things..
Anybody else want to waste a few minutes:
http://dpc.senate.gov/hearings/hearing22/jointreport.pdf

Of course the United States Senate are probably a bunch of Baukunists Revolutionaries to VOP

And maybe for VOP charging $800,000,000 for meals never served, perhaps that's "just a contractual dispute" but to any sentient being able to glance at the above report, it sure as hell is obviously part of a pattern that was condoned..


And somebody politer than I explain to the friend of terrorist, and fugitive from law that we are not discussing "any Large Corporation", this thread, since his attention span is defective, was about insane and ridiculous waste of taxpayer money----destabilizing world security as it enriches a few tenths of one percent of my country.

Lame attempt at changing the subject. Lame even for Vop.

$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-)

$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan
By Roxana Tiron - 10/15/09 08:34 PM ET
Tweet

The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.

The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.

Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.

“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”

The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.

[airshifter]

For those thinking this is pizza delivery, $400 a gallon fuel costs may seem high. For those dealing in reality they would accept it as a very high cost of dealing with very remote locations and transporting goods that change hands many times in a high security situation. There are many situations where the fuel used to transport other fuel is many times over the fuel that ends up at the final location. Add to that often dealing with contract agreements supporting the countries and it may well cost half of that before the military puts their hands on it. From there they have to get it to very remote areas.

The same applies to just about anything in a remote military environment. It's not as if you simple hire a driver to deliver across town.




As for the Haliburton contracts, people that actually research the issue will find that many were put out to bid, and the only company that could accomplish the task was Haliburton or one of their other branches. There have been a great deal of "questioned" costs, and the vast majority have been cleared by the GAO. If proven to have intentionally overbilled on any disputed item, they could be charged with fraud. If the things claimed by so many were black and white and fact, by now Haliburton would have been not only charged but convicted of fraud.

[anthonyvop]

At Vop---at, not in conversation or debate, I don't converse with people that socialize and apologize for murderers and terrorists---and brag about it.


Does the news not reach that isolated wasteland where you are holed up? No recollection of recent events? Early onset Ahlheimers, or the sun cooked the braon too much?

VOp is the worst kind of troll, the one that pretends he doesn't know things..
Anybody else want to waste a few minutes:
http://dpc.senate.gov/hearings/hearing22/jointreport.pdf

Of course the United States Senate are probably a bunch of Baukunists Revolutionaries to VOP

And maybe for VOP charging $800,000,000 for meals never served, perhaps that's "just a contractual dispute" but to any sentient being able to glance at the above report, it sure as hell is obviously part of a pattern that was condoned..


And somebody politer than I explain to the friend of terrorist, and fugitive from law that we are not discussing "any Large Corporation", this thread, since his attention span is defective, was about insane and ridiculous waste of taxpayer money----destabilizing world security as it enriches a few tenths of one percent of my country.

Lame attempt at changing the subject. Lame even for Vop.

$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-)

$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan
By Roxana Tiron - 10/15/09 08:34 PM ET
Tweet

The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.

The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.

Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.

“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”

The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.

All you have is a Partisan report by two of the most Left-wing, Anti-Business people in Congress from 2005?

then you follow up with a quote from the treasonous John Murtha?

Seriously?

Is that all?

No Criminal Conviction?
No Bi=Partisan finding?
Not even an admission of a possible clerical error?

Nothing?

And you did know that the report was about Halliburton not KBR right?

Still waiting for you to give us an example of a large corporation that doesn't get sued or accused of malfeasance. I would think up where you are from there are tons of Progressive Corporations that nobody sues.

[janvanvurpa]

Sorry folk, can't waste endless amounts of time with people who lie and parse words and play the "no conviction" BS. I received yet another infraction from the so called "moderator" for daring to ask Vop simple questions---which we knows he knows about this, everybody was watching all this and it is nothing new.....
Military procurement is and has been legalized theft for decades.
Indeed American foreign policy and the quick resort to military solutions could not be a better designed plan for direct wealth transfer to a select group of interlocking companies/DoD/politicians...
800 million dollars for unserved meals.

It was bad in the 50s, seriously bad enough that a man far more astute than any of the notorious crowd of gung ho flag wavers here spoke as clear a a man can speak in his farewell address when leaving the White House.

The real insults are those thrown out insulting the intelligence of the other readers and the pretending innocence, and the transparently obvious attempts at distracting the readers "still waiting .."---that sort of crap deserves an infraction

Have fun.

[Zico]

Sorry folk, can't waste endless amounts of time with people who lie and parse words and play the "no conviction" BS. I received yet another infraction from the so called "moderator" for daring to ask Vop simple questions---which we knows he knows about this, everybody was watching all this and it is nothing new.....
Military procurement is and has been legalized theft for decades.
Indeed American foreign policy and the quick resort to military solutions could not be a better designed plan for direct wealth transfer to a select group of interlocking companies/DoD/politicians...
800 million dollars for unserved meals.

It was bad in the 50s, seriously bad enough that a man far more astute than any of the notorious crowd of gung ho flag wavers here spoke as clear a a man can speak in his farewell address when leaving the White House.

The real insults are those thrown out insulting the intelligence of the other readers and the pretending innocence, and the transparently obvious attempts at distracting the readers "still waiting .."---that sort of crap deserves an infraction

Have fun.

I could simply have 'liked' this but felt it deserved a stronger agreement.. Well said Sir.

[airshifter]

Sorry folk, can't waste endless amounts of time with people who lie and parse words and play the "no conviction" BS. I received yet another infraction from the so called "moderator" for daring to ask Vop simple questions---which we knows he knows about this, everybody was watching all this and it is nothing new.....
Military procurement is and has been legalized theft for decades.
Indeed American foreign policy and the quick resort to military solutions could not be a better designed plan for direct wealth transfer to a select group of interlocking companies/DoD/politicians...
800 million dollars for unserved meals.

It was bad in the 50s, seriously bad enough that a man far more astute than any of the notorious crowd of gung ho flag wavers here spoke as clear a a man can speak in his farewell address when leaving the White House.

The real insults are those thrown out insulting the intelligence of the other readers and the pretending innocence, and the transparently obvious attempts at distracting the readers "still waiting .."---that sort of crap deserves an infraction

Have fun.

I'd suggest that the fact you can't engage in discussion without insulting anyone that has another view is the cause of the infraction. Of course I lie because the facts as I see them don't agree with your view. I don't see where Vop insulted anyone either, he simply disputed a point of view.


Taken directly from your provided link:

"In April 2005, Defense Department officials dismissed auditor findings that
Halliburton had submitted $200 million in questioned charges for dining facility
services, deciding instead to retroactively change the formula for Halliburton’s
billing and increase the company’s profit margin.

On April 5, 2005, the U.S. Army Field Support Command announced that
Halliburton would receive $145 million out of $200 million (72.5%) of the costs
DCAA questioned for meal services in Iraq."


This is not the 800 million you claim was for meals never served. Once again those actually researching the issue would find that Haliburton stated that their obligation stated in the contract was to make dining facilities and meals available, and there was no clause of payment per meal served. Once again not a drive through down the road, but dining facilities often within high security areas and in some cases even in forward operating bases.





Having dealt directly with military procurement in the past I found that it was their procedures and insane clauses that create the majority of the fleecing they end up taking. I had things that we made that it took more time to read through and conform with the contract requirement red tape than it did to make and deliver the product. I had several local commands that in the long run saved a ton of money by changing their procedures.

These days I work on several bases on the non military side, and see the same thing. They are so tied up in red tape that they can barely function at times. Here is another example of government waste that could easily be stopped.... I work on 6 different locations and to do so submit to 4 different types of background check and passes. Though each base commander does have discretion as to civilian access they have procedures where one pass could handle the different requirements of each base. Out of the 4 background checks and passes, only one of them is paid for at my company expense. The other 3 are paid by tax money.

[anthonyvop]

Sorry folk, can't waste endless amounts of time with people who lie and parse words and play the "no conviction" BS. I received yet another infraction from the so called "moderator" for daring to ask Vop simple questions---which we knows he knows about this, everybody was watching all this and it is nothing new.....
Military procurement is and has been legalized theft for decades.
Indeed American foreign policy and the quick resort to military solutions could not be a better designed plan for direct wealth transfer to a select group of interlocking companies/DoD/politicians...
800 million dollars for unserved meals.

It was bad in the 50s, seriously bad enough that a man far more astute than any of the notorious crowd of gung ho flag wavers here spoke as clear a a man can speak in his farewell address when leaving the White House.

The real insults are those thrown out insulting the intelligence of the other readers and the pretending innocence, and the transparently obvious attempts at distracting the readers "still waiting .."---that sort of crap deserves an infraction

Have fun.



So ya got nothing???


Not even an attempt at an answer for my simple question? I know you can't be too busy

[janvanvurpa]

So ya got nothing???


Not even an attempt at an answer for my simple question? I know you can't be too busy

You, me and everybody else who has been alive and able to read any time after 2000 has endless answers.

Your pretense that you need citations is trolling in the classic sense.
YOU prove I am incorrect- You can waste your time REFUTING the FACTS if you want to prove you have something.

Rather than dismissing the facts with saying "that's a Democrat".




I said I will not engage in your time wasting since the out of control "moderator" Starter keeps sending me threats about "you'll be out of here" since he approves of your general type of insults insulting everybody, but disapproves of any answer back and has a burning need to control dialog.

[BDunnell]

You have been sanctioned here several times for insulting other members prior to that - I even cited the specific dates to you in a PM.

That, with respect, is not something I think you as a moderator should be raising in public. I also feel it's inappropriate for you to call a fellow forum member a liar.

[anthonyvop]

You, me and everybody else who has been alive and able to read any time after 2000 has endless answers.

It shouldn't be a problem then, Give me just 1. Just 1 single large corporation that hasn't been sued or accused of malfeasance.


Your pretense that you need citations is trolling in the classic sense.
YOU prove I am incorrect- You can waste your time REFUTING the FACTS if you want to prove you have something.

I have already proven you are incorrect. It isn't my fault you can't accept it


Rather than dismissing the facts with saying "that's a Democrat".

I never said Democrat. Check. I said "two of the most Left-wing, Anti-Business people in Congress" and "treasonous" It was you who associated it with the Democratic Party....Not me.



I said I will not engage in your time wasting since the out of control "moderator" Starter keeps sending me threats about "you'll be out of here" since he approves of your general type of insults insulting everybody, but disapproves of any answer back and has a burning need to control dialog.

Well then stop with the tired old left-wing tactic of resorting to personal insults when faced with irrefutable logic

[janvanvurpa]

Mr. janvanvurpa, the liar here is you, not Vop. I clearly stated in the explaination that went with your infraction that it was because of the personal insult directed at Vop and not because of the rest of that post. You have been sanctioned here several times for insulting other members prior to that - I even cited the specific dates to you in a PM, just in case you forgot. You do your position no good when you act in that manner. You are most definitely NOT the poster child for intelligent and civilzed discourse.


I say again your personal animus shows very clearly. It is fine line but asking some theoretical or real person "Are you so out of touch? Are you drunk? Are you an idiot?" IS NOT the same as calling them that. That is why we differentiate between declarative statements and questions and the smarter amongst us notice we use a little thingie to distinguish the 2---it's called a question mark and it looks like this: ?
perhaps you've seen one before?

You can call me a liar from the safety of your cherished anonymity and your undeserved status here since you are anything but moderate.
But it does not alter the fact that Vop knows full well what he is playing his "cite sources" game, pretend all you want but that is a lie, and the pretense he operates under is an insult to readers here.
It is unfortunate that you are mired in a level of reading that is entirely superficial, a trait shared by so many of our countrymen, and particularly here, that it is a worldwide cliche.

You are on a vendetta whatever your name is, that is obvious, and the repeated PMs from other forum members sick to death of your heavy handed mixing of opinion and moderator status belies that...

The moderating in general is simply bizarre.
In Feburary I received an 'infraction' for the crime of agreeing with a statement that BDunnel wrote. He had correctly said that something I wrote was absurd or nonsensical and I explained that I agreed and that it was because it is pointless to talk rationally with...let's see here it is:

Quote Originally Posted by BDunnell View Post
That's a bit of a ridiculous statement to make, if I may say so.
Thank you.

My personally insulting response:

Let me explain something again.
When dealing with ridiculous people the only logical response is a ridiculous one. When dealing with those who spew hate and advocate violence, it is only logical to return them the favor so as to help them to understand their folly.

You just said something to the effect that he---whatever alias he hides behind---seems like a sociopath
I believe you said.. lemme run and check,
check clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp Hmmmmm lessee (rummage rustle)
Ah yes, it was a sociopath clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp

OK I'm back, these clogs are noisy on wood, eh?
Yes you said "he seems like a sociopath" Now I'm in full agreement with you. Tell me, why should I attempt to speak rationally with a sociopath---and 'ow do you know e's NOT a paranoiac , eh?

I'm mainly curious where such a degree of hate and contempt for humanity was developed and so I can make sure I avoid it.

Now I'm note trying to either argue or get BDunnel in trouble, but a big threat to me for merely agreeing with something he said evidently without penalty (I can't say, I did PM him and asked if he'd been threatened or got a whack on his e-peen, but he didn't answer) seems a bit over the top.


The moderating is definitely out of control when a moderator can make personal insults as whatever Starters name is just did without receiving an infraction.

The scene from Blazing Saddles where the new Sheriff pulls a gun and holds it to his own head springs to mind.

Whatever, Starter wants me out of Chit Chat and like the rest of his class of people the operative rule is do as I say, not as I do.
So I guess its alright for you to make personal insults, you're exempt from the rules you govern by, so call me a liar all you want.
It's your forum, and any disagreement with whatever you decide the meaning of anything is must by definition mean a person is a liar.

After all insults, like all offense, does depend on intent.

[BDunnell]

He was the one to put it up in public. I was done with it until then. Also suggest you re read his post which I quoted. He was the one who called a member a liar and then lied about the circumstances in his post. Should he dispute that, and he gives gives me permission to use it, I'll be pleased to put up the PM proving same.

I'm afraid I don't think that response is good enough from a moderator. I, too — as you know, I think — have doubts about your suitability for the position, as in spite of your assurances to the contrary I believe you do treat some members differently to others when it comes to issuing warnings.

[BDunnell]

Now I'm note trying to either argue or get BDunnel in trouble, but a big threat to me for merely agreeing with something he said evidently without penalty (I can't say, I did PM him and asked if he'd been threatened or got a whack on his e-peen, but he didn't answer) seems a bit over the top.

I didn't answer because I very, very seldom engage in discussion via PM about other members.

[janvanvurpa]

I didn't answer because I very, very seldom engage in discussion via PM about other members.

It was a question which could have been answered with a single word yes or no.. I understand and I do the same.
But the question remains: Did you get a threat from these so called moderators for saying that guy "seems like.....a sociopath"?

[schmenke]

Good Lord, quite the childish thread :s .

Why don’t you all go relax with nice cup of chai, then continue via PM :)

[janvanvurpa]

Good Lord, quite the childish thread :s .

Why don’t you all go relax with nice cup of chai, then continue via PM :)

Yeah let's get back to important things that most here do, talking about motorsport, races and racing and above all BENCH RACING 10,000 or more posts on things they watched on TV and therefore are experts on even though they have never done anything remotely similar!

[anthonyvop]

Yeah let's get back to important things that most here do, talking about motorsport, races and racing and above all BENCH RACING 10,000 or more posts on things they watched on TV and therefore are experts on even though they have never done anything remotely similar!

Still waiting on that answer

[janvanvurpa]

Still waiting on that answer

You really do have difficulties in reading comprehension don't you? That (to the anything but moderate Moderators is a question. Remember I taught you the difference recently?)

You can wait until you shrivel up and blow away....

Oh, a groundless assertion is not irrefutable logic...