Re: Show of hands [message #78602 is a reply to message #78399] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 09:25 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
>
>>> Good. The qualifier "Australia" is the way to do it. The word you
>>> people are actually looking for is "airdate". The show first aired in
>>> 1966. Probably in September. In territory under the jurisdiction of
>>> the North American Aerospace Command. That would be a place known as
>>> "North America".
>>
>> Gee, Mito, I thought Canada and Mexico were also part of "North
>> America". Are they protected by "North American Aerospace Command" as well??
>>
>> In so many thing, U.S. of A.ian's think *THEY* are the world, but they
>> are only one small part of it!!
>>
>> So your qualifier would be US of A, as in....
>>
>> First US of A Network Run: NBC, 1966.
>>
>> And, as it was produced by a US of A network, I would expect it to have
>> its first Network run there .... not always the case, but mostly!
>>
>> Daniel
>
> Yes, it was PRODUCED by a USA network, known by the call letters
> "NBC". It was also broadcast on a network north of the American border
> (either CTV or CBC) AT THE SAME TIME, in a country that begins with
> the letter "C". You do not understand the notion of SIMULCAST, and
> no, it does not mean a broadcast in differerent mediums.
I thought it was produced by Desilu for NBC (at least initially), but I
may be wrong!
And hasn't Wouter shown (and I think you even agreed, Mito) that it was
shown in Canada several days before in U.S. of A?? And you even claim
you were there, Mito!!
> Canada and Mexico are indeed part of the wilderness known as "North
> America". The "North American Aerospace Command" actually existed - it
> was usualy called N.O.R.A.D.. Mexico was not protected, but Canada
> was. You don't know this because you were raised on e-mail and cell-
> phones in Terra Incognita.
I suppose I am growing up in the "e-mail" times (but not cell-phones!!
We don't even have them now!! No-one in Australia has a cell-phone! No,
wait, two of my sister and a girl-friend were in U.S. of A. last year
and brought 'phones whilst there, so, maybe, they have cell-phones here
in Australia!!) but, as I've typed elsewhere, I did see Star Trek in
first run, waaaayyy back when!!
> Now once again - There was only ONE FIRST NETWORK RUN - in 1966,
> visible to viewers in the US and parts of Canada. At the same time.
> Same day. Same hour. Sometimes even the same commercials.
So, hang on, which was the *FIRST NETWORK RUN* .... CTV/CBC or NBC??
There can only be one first network run .. the others were first
(NATION) network run, after all!!
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #78605 is a reply to message #78397] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 10:20 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in news:cedb1dec-89e5-404b-
9086-4d20ff45d22c@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 2, 2:59 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>> As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and* Canada.
>>
>>> http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>
>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>>
>>> And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> BTW, I'm puzzled why NORAD was evoked in the first place.
>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when you
are
>> talking about international organisations that have the US and Canada
as
>> member states.
>
>
> It was a joke about "airing" and "broadcasting" and "airwaves". NORAD
> is about aerospace and broadcasting is about, well, broadcasting over
> airwaves, so, well, uh... I guess it's just not that funny. (Tough
> Room)
>
> By the way, have I ever told you that there is no K/S in TOS?
>
Yeah, everytime you lose an argument and want to change the subject by
bringing up something irrelevant to the conversation.
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #78659 is a reply to message #78601] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 12:28 |
Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 228 Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>>
>>> As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and* Canada.
>>>
>>> http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>>>
>>> And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when you
>> are talking about international organisations that have the US and
>> Canada as member states.
>> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>
> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the countries in
> NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I think Russia is a
> member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or something!
Russiia is not a member of NATO. And I'm very much okay with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_the_United_States
--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net
Kirk: "My God, Bones... what have I done?"
McCoy: "What you had to do. What you always do: turn death into a fighting
chance to live."
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
liam=mail
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #78710 is a reply to message #78659] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 17:43 |
YourName
Messages: 366 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <51ab72ce$0$16009$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and* Canada.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>>>>
>>>> And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when you
>>> are talking about international organisations that have the US and
>>> Canada as member states.
>>> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>>
>> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the countries in
>> NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I think Russia is a
>> member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or something!
>
> Russiia is not a member of NATO. And I'm very much okay with that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
>
> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_the_United_States
Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #79626 is a reply to message #78710] |
Mon, 03 June 2013 01:29 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
YourName@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-0306130943310001@203-118-187-156.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
> In article <51ab72ce$0$16009$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
> Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> > Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and*
>>>> > Canada.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>>> >
>>>> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Comm
>>>> > and
>>>> >
>>>> > And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>>>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when
>>>> you are talking about international organisations that have the US
>>>> and Canada as member states.
>>>> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>>>
>>> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the countries
>>> in NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I think Russia is
>>> a member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or something!
>>
>> Russiia is not a member of NATO. And I'm very much okay with that.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
>>
>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two
>> continents with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>
> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
>
> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it
> would be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>
>
>
>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>>
>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_th
e
> _United_States
>
> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
>
it's = it is
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #79672 is a reply to message #78601] |
Mon, 03 June 2013 03:22 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jun 2, 9:56Â pm, "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au>
wrote:
> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>> As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and* Canada.
>
>>> http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>
>>> And yes, they left out Mexico.
>
>> <snip>
>
>> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when you are
>> talking about international organisations that have the US and Canada as
>> member states.
>> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>
> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the countries in
> NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I think Russia is a
> member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or something!
>
> And who would have thought "NORAD" *does* cover Canada! Sorry, Mito.
>
> Daniel
Russia is most definitely NOT part of NATO in any way, shape or form.
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #79673 is a reply to message #78602] |
Mon, 03 June 2013 03:25 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jun 2, 10:25Â pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
<d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>
>>>> Good. The qualifier "Australia" is the way to do it. The word you
>>>> people are actually looking for is "airdate". The show first aired in
>>>> 1966. Probably in September. In territory under the jurisdiction of
>>>> the North American Aerospace Command. That would be a place known as
>>>> "North America".
>
>>> Gee, Mito, I thought Canada and Mexico were also part of "North
>>> America". Are they protected by "North American Aerospace Command" as well??
>
>>> In so many thing, U.S. of A.ian's think *THEY* are the world, but they
>>> are only one small part of it!!
>
>>> So your qualifier would be US of A, as in....
>
>>> First US of A Network Run: NBC, 1966.
>
>>> And, as it was produced by a US of A network, I would expect it to have
>>> its first Network run there .... not always the case, but mostly!
>
>>> Daniel
>
>> Yes, it was PRODUCED by a USA network, known by the call letters
>> "NBC". It was also broadcast on a network north of the American border
>> (either CTV or CBC) Â AT THE SAME TIME, in a country that begins with
>> the letter "C". Â You do not understand the notion of SIMULCAST, and
>> no, it does not mean a broadcast in differerent mediums.
>
> I thought it was produced by Desilu for NBC (at least initially), but I
> may be wrong!
>
> And hasn't Wouter shown (and I think you even agreed, Mito) that it was
> shown in Canada several days before in U.S. of A?? And you even claim
> you were there, Mito!!
>
>> Canada and Mexico are indeed part of the wilderness known as "North
>> America". The "North American Aerospace Command" actually existed - it
>> was usualy called N.O.R.A.D.. Mexico was not protected, but Canada
>> was. You don't know this because you were raised on e-mail and cell-
>> phones in Terra Incognita.
>
> I suppose I am growing up in the "e-mail" times (but not cell-phones!!
> We don't even have them now!! No-one in Australia has a cell-phone! No,
> wait, two of my sister and a girl-friend were in U.S. of A. last year
> and brought 'phones whilst there, so, maybe, they have cell-phones here
> in Australia!!) but, as I've typed elsewhere, I did see Star Trek in
> first run, waaaayyy back when!!
>
>> Now once again - There was only ONE FIRST NETWORK RUN - in 1966,
>> visible to viewers in the US and parts of Canada. At the same time.
>> Same day. Same hour. Sometimes even the same commercials.
>
> So, hang on, which was the *FIRST NETWORK RUN* .... CTV/CBC or NBC??
> There can only be one first network run .. the others were first
> (NATION) network run, after all!!
>
> Daniel
Ha ha! Funny guy. NBC gets the nod. It was produced by Desilu and
broadcast by NBC and simulcast (actually a few days earlier) by CTV.
Now then, about that 800-pound elephant in the room: NORWAY
PRODUCTIONS. What the hell was/is that?
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #79674 is a reply to message #78710] |
Mon, 03 June 2013 03:28 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jun 3, 6:43Â am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <51ab72ce$0$16009$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
>
>
>
>
>
> Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> > Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>>> > As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and* Canada.
>
>>>> >http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>
>>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>
>>>> > And yes, they left out Mexico.
>
>>>> <snip>
>
>>>> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>>>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when you
>>>> are talking about international organisations that have the US and
>>>> Canada as member states.
>>>> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>
>>> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the countries in
>>> NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I think Russia is a
>>> member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or something!
>
>> Russiia is not a member of NATO. And I'm very much okay with that.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
>
>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>
> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Â :-)
>
> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
> be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>
>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_t...
>
> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics. See:
Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral Zone, etc..
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81399 is a reply to message #79673] |
Tue, 04 June 2013 02:28 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f5a2803f-c169-4e3f-8444-99246e7ec432@bw5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 2, 10:25 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>
>>>> > Good. The qualifier "Australia" is the way to do it. The word you
>>>> > people are actually looking for is "airdate". The show first
>>>> > aired in 1966. Probably in September. In territory under the
>>>> > jurisdiction of the North American Aerospace Command. That would
>>>> > be a place known as "North America".
>>
>>>> Gee, Mito, I thought Canada and Mexico were also part of "North
>>>> America". Are they protected by "North American Aerospace Command"
>>>> as
> well??
>>
>>>> In so many thing, U.S. of A.ian's think *THEY* are the world, but
>>>> they are only one small part of it!!
>>
>>>> So your qualifier would be US of A, as in....
>>
>>>> First US of A Network Run: NBC, 1966.
>>
>>>> And, as it was produced by a US of A network, I would expect it to
>>>> hav
> e
>>>> its first Network run there .... not always the case, but mostly!
>>
>>>> Daniel
>>
>>> Yes, it was PRODUCED by a USA network, known by the call letters
>>> "NBC". It was also broadcast on a network north of the American
>>> border (either CTV or CBC) AT THE SAME TIME, in a country that
>>> begins with the letter "C". You do not understand the notion of
>>> SIMULCAST, and no, it does not mean a broadcast in differerent
>>> mediums.
>>
>> I thought it was produced by Desilu for NBC (at least initially), but
>> I may be wrong!
>>
>> And hasn't Wouter shown (and I think you even agreed, Mito) that it
>> was shown in Canada several days before in U.S. of A?? And you even
>> claim you were there, Mito!!
>>
>>> Canada and Mexico are indeed part of the wilderness known as "North
>>> America". The "North American Aerospace Command" actually existed -
>>> it was usualy called N.O.R.A.D.. Mexico was not protected, but
>>> Canada was. You don't know this because you were raised on e-mail
>>> and cell- phones in Terra Incognita.
>>
>> I suppose I am growing up in the "e-mail" times (but not
>> cell-phones!! We don't even have them now!! No-one in Australia has a
>> cell-phone! No, wait, two of my sister and a girl-friend were in U.S.
>> of A. last year and brought 'phones whilst there, so, maybe, they
>> have cell-phones here in Australia!!) but, as I've typed elsewhere, I
>> did see Star Trek in first run, waaaayyy back when!!
>>
>>> Now once again - There was only ONE FIRST NETWORK RUN - in 1966,
>>> visible to viewers in the US and parts of Canada. At the same time.
>>> Same day. Same hour. Sometimes even the same commercials.
>>
>> So, hang on, which was the *FIRST NETWORK RUN* .... CTV/CBC or NBC??
>> There can only be one first network run .. the others were first
>> (NATION) network run, after all!!
>>
>> Daniel
>
> Ha ha! Funny guy. NBC gets the nod. It was produced by Desilu and
> broadcast by NBC and simulcast (actually a few days earlier) by CTV.
>
> Now then, about that 800-pound elephant in the room: NORWAY
> PRODUCTIONS. What the hell was/is that?
>
Gene Roddenberry's production company.
Producers or executive producers have their own production companies
with which the series are co-produced with the major studio.
Rod Serling had Cayuga Productions, Alfred Hitchcock had Shamley
Productions, Dick Wolf has Dick Wolf Productions, etc.
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81406 is a reply to message #81399] |
Tue, 04 June 2013 04:35 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jun 4, 3:28Â pm, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:f5a2803f-c169-4e3f-8444-99246e7ec432@bw5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jun 2, 10:25 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>
>>>> >> Good. The qualifier "Australia" is the way to do it. The word you
>>>> >> people are actually looking for is "airdate". The show first
>>>> >> aired in 1966. Probably in September. In territory under the
>>>> >> jurisdiction of the North American Aerospace Command. That would
>>>> >> be a place known as "North America".
>
>>>> > Gee, Mito, I thought Canada and Mexico were also part of "North
>>>> > America". Are they protected by "North American Aerospace Command"
>>>> > as
>> well??
>
>>>> > In so many thing, U.S. of A.ian's think *THEY* are the world, but
>>>> > they are only one small part of it!!
>
>>>> > So your qualifier would be US of A, as in....
>
>>>> > First US of A Network Run: NBC, 1966.
>
>>>> > And, as it was produced by a US of A network, I would expect it to
>>>> > hav
>> e
>>>> > its first Network run there .... not always the case, but mostly!
>
>>>> > Daniel
>
>>>> Yes, it was PRODUCED by a USA network, known by the call letters
>>>> "NBC". It was also broadcast on a network north of the American
>>>> border (either CTV or CBC) AT THE SAME TIME, in a country that
>>>> begins with the letter "C". You do not understand the notion of
>>>> SIMULCAST, and no, it does not mean a broadcast in differerent
>>>> mediums.
>
>>> I thought it was produced by Desilu for NBC (at least initially), but
>>> I may be wrong!
>
>>> And hasn't Wouter shown (and I think you even agreed, Mito) that it
>>> was shown in Canada several days before in U.S. of A?? And you even
>>> claim you were there, Mito!!
>
>>>> Canada and Mexico are indeed part of the wilderness known as "North
>>>> America". The "North American Aerospace Command" actually existed -
>>>> it was usualy called N.O.R.A.D.. Mexico was not protected, but
>>>> Canada was. You don't know this because you were raised on e-mail
>>>> and cell- phones in Terra Incognita.
>
>>> I suppose I am growing up in the "e-mail" times (but not
>>> cell-phones!! We don't even have them now!! No-one in Australia has a
>>> cell-phone! No, wait, two of my sister and a girl-friend were in U.S.
>>> of A. last year and brought 'phones whilst there, so, maybe, they
>>> have cell-phones here in Australia!!) but, as I've typed elsewhere, I
>>> did see Star Trek in first run, waaaayyy back when!!
>
>>>> Now once again - There was only ONE FIRST NETWORK RUN - in 1966,
>>>> visible to viewers in the US and parts of Canada. At the same time.
>>>> Same day. Same hour. Sometimes even the same commercials.
>
>>> So, hang on, which was the *FIRST NETWORK RUN* .... CTV/CBC or NBC??
>>> There can only be one first network run .. the others were first
>>> (NATION) network run, after all!!
>
>>> Daniel
>
>> Ha ha! Funny guy. NBC gets the nod. It was produced by Desilu and
>> broadcast by NBC and simulcast (actually a few days earlier) by CTV.
>
>> Now then, about that 800-pound elephant in the room: NORWAY
>> PRODUCTIONS. What the hell was/is that?
>
> Gene Roddenberry's production company.
> Producers or executive producers have their own production companies
> with which the series are co-produced with the major studio.
>
> Rod Serling had Cayuga Productions, Alfred Hitchcock had Shamley
> Productions, Dick Wolf has Dick Wolf Productions, etc.
Thanks. I knew that. Sort of.
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81452 is a reply to message #78710] |
Tue, 04 June 2013 10:10 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Your Name wrote:
> In article <51ab72ce$0$16009$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
> Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> > Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and* Canada.
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>>> >
>>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>>>> >
>>>> > And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>>>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when you
>>>> are talking about international organisations that have the US and
>>>> Canada as member states.
>>>> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>>>
>>> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the countries in
>>> NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I think Russia is a
>>> member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or something!
>>
>> Russiia is not a member of NATO. And I'm very much okay with that.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
>>
>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>
> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
>
> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
> be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>
Italy is not on the North Atlantic ocean, either, but *is* a member of
NATO!!
I'd almost accept Wouter Valentijn's notion that it all works if you
think of it as a combined Europe, except that Switzerland (I think it
is) is not a member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>>
>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_the_United_States
>
> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81453 is a reply to message #79674] |
Tue, 04 June 2013 10:14 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Jun 3, 6:43 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
<Snip>
>>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>>> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>>
>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
>>
>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
>> be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>>
>>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_t...
>>
>> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
>> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
>> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
>
> Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics. See:
> Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral Zone, etc..
I wouldn't put any of these in the "Political Powerhouses" list! Of NATO
or otherwise!
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81454 is a reply to message #79672] |
Tue, 04 June 2013 10:16 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Jun 2, 9:56 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com" <d...@albury.nospam.net.au>
> wrote:
>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> Danie...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>>>> As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and* Canada.
>>
>>>> http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>>
>>>> And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>>> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when you are
>>> talking about international organisations that have the US and Canada as
>>> member states.
>>> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>>
>> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the countries in
>> NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I think Russia is a
>> member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or something!
>>
>> And who would have thought "NORAD" *does* cover Canada! Sorry, Mito.
>>
>> Daniel
>
> Russia is most definitely NOT part of NATO in any way, shape or form.
Yeap!! YL,YL!!
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81455 is a reply to message #81406] |
Tue, 04 June 2013 10:20 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Jun 4, 3:28 pm, Wiseguy <epw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:f5a2803f-c169-4e3f-8444-99246e7ec432@bw5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 2, 10:25 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>
>>>> >>> Good. The qualifier "Australia" is the way to do it. The word you
>>>> >>> people are actually looking for is "airdate". The show first
>>>> >>> aired in 1966. Probably in September. In territory under the
>>>> >>> jurisdiction of the North American Aerospace Command. That would
>>>> >>> be a place known as "North America".
>>
>>>> >> Gee, Mito, I thought Canada and Mexico were also part of "North
>>>> >> America". Are they protected by "North American Aerospace Command"
>>>> >> as
>>> well??
>>
>>>> >> In so many thing, U.S. of A.ian's think *THEY* are the world, but
>>>> >> they are only one small part of it!!
>>
>>>> >> So your qualifier would be US of A, as in....
>>
>>>> >> First US of A Network Run: NBC, 1966.
>>
>>>> >> And, as it was produced by a US of A network, I would expect it to
>>>> >> hav
>>> e
>>>> >> its first Network run there .... not always the case, but mostly!
>>
>>>> >> Daniel
>>
>>>> > Yes, it was PRODUCED by a USA network, known by the call letters
>>>> > "NBC". It was also broadcast on a network north of the American
>>>> > border (either CTV or CBC) AT THE SAME TIME, in a country that
>>>> > begins with the letter "C". You do not understand the notion of
>>>> > SIMULCAST, and no, it does not mean a broadcast in differerent
>>>> > mediums.
>>
>>>> I thought it was produced by Desilu for NBC (at least initially), but
>>>> I may be wrong!
>>
>>>> And hasn't Wouter shown (and I think you even agreed, Mito) that it
>>>> was shown in Canada several days before in U.S. of A?? And you even
>>>> claim you were there, Mito!!
>>
>>>> > Canada and Mexico are indeed part of the wilderness known as "North
>>>> > America". The "North American Aerospace Command" actually existed -
>>>> > it was usualy called N.O.R.A.D.. Mexico was not protected, but
>>>> > Canada was. You don't know this because you were raised on e-mail
>>>> > and cell- phones in Terra Incognita.
>>
>>>> I suppose I am growing up in the "e-mail" times (but not
>>>> cell-phones!! We don't even have them now!! No-one in Australia has a
>>>> cell-phone! No, wait, two of my sister and a girl-friend were in U.S.
>>>> of A. last year and brought 'phones whilst there, so, maybe, they
>>>> have cell-phones here in Australia!!) but, as I've typed elsewhere, I
>>>> did see Star Trek in first run, waaaayyy back when!!
>>
>>>> > Now once again - There was only ONE FIRST NETWORK RUN - in 1966,
>>>> > visible to viewers in the US and parts of Canada. At the same time.
>>>> > Same day. Same hour. Sometimes even the same commercials.
>>
>>>> So, hang on, which was the *FIRST NETWORK RUN* .... CTV/CBC or NBC??
>>>> There can only be one first network run .. the others were first
>>>> (NATION) network run, after all!!
>>
>>>> Daniel
>>
>>> Ha ha! Funny guy. NBC gets the nod. It was produced by Desilu and
>>> broadcast by NBC and simulcast (actually a few days earlier) by CTV.
>>
>>> Now then, about that 800-pound elephant in the room: NORWAY
>>> PRODUCTIONS. What the hell was/is that?
>>
>> Gene Roddenberry's production company.
>> Producers or executive producers have their own production companies
>> with which the series are co-produced with the major studio.
>>
>> Rod Serling had Cayuga Productions, Alfred Hitchcock had Shamley
>> Productions, Dick Wolf has Dick Wolf Productions, etc.
>
> Thanks. I knew that. Sort of.
I didn't, so thanks.
With all the titles that get thrown around in "Filmworld" now-a-days,
I'm lost with who does what!!
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81597 is a reply to message #81453] |
Tue, 04 June 2013 20:38 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jun 4, 11:14Â pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
<d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 6:43 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>>>> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>
>>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Â :-)
>
>>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
>>> be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>
>>>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_t....
>
>>> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
>>> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
>>> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
>
>> Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics. See:
>> Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral Zone, etc..
>
> I wouldn't put any of these in the "Political Powerhouses" list! Of NATO
> or otherwise!
>
> Daniel
"Power politics" does not mean political powerhouse. Are you a little
boy?
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81743 is a reply to message #81597] |
Wed, 05 June 2013 10:16 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:14 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>> On Jun 3, 6:43 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> > Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>>>> > with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>>
>>>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
>>
>>>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
>>>> be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>>
>>>> > The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_t...
>>
>>>> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
>>>> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
>>>> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
>>
>>> Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics. See:
>>> Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral Zone, etc..
>>
>> I wouldn't put any of these in the "Political Powerhouses" list! Of NATO
>> or otherwise!
>>
>> Daniel
>
> "Power politics" does not mean political powerhouse. Are you a little
> boy?
No, Mito!! So, what does "Power politics" mean then, Mito??
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81944 is a reply to message #81743] |
Thu, 06 June 2013 07:52 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jun 5, 11:16Â pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
<d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 11:14 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Jun 3, 6:43 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
>>> <Snip>
>
>>>> >> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>>>> >> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>
>>>> > That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Â :-)
>
>>>> > Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
>>>> > be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>
>>>> >> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>
>>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_t....
>
>>>> > Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
>>>> > somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
>>>> > nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
>
>>>> Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics. See:
>>>> Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral Zone, etc..
>
>>> I wouldn't put any of these in the "Political Powerhouses" list! Of NATO
>>> or otherwise!
>
>>> Daniel
>
>> "Power politics" does not mean political powerhouse. Are you a little
>> boy?
>
> No, Mito!! So, what does "Power politics" mean then, Mito??
>
> Daniel
Sigh!
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #81946 is a reply to message #81944] |
Thu, 06 June 2013 09:10 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Jun 5, 11:16 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 11:14 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> > On Jun 3, 6:43 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>
>>>> >>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>>>> >>> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>>
>>>> >> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
>>
>>>> >> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
>>>> >> be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>>
>>>> >>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>>
>>>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_t...
>>
>>>> >> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
>>>> >> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
>>>> >> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
>>
>>>> > Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics. See:
>>>> > Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral Zone, etc..
>>
>>>> I wouldn't put any of these in the "Political Powerhouses" list! Of NATO
>>>> or otherwise!
>>
>>>> Daniel
>>
>>> "Power politics" does not mean political powerhouse. Are you a little
>>> boy?
>>
>> No, Mito!! So, what does "Power politics" mean then, Mito??
>>
>> Daniel
>
> Sigh!
So, what?? I'm wrong but you've got no idea what right is!!
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #82078 is a reply to message #81946] |
Thu, 06 June 2013 21:47 |
MITO MINISTER
Messages: 197 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jun 6, 10:10Â pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
<d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 11:16 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Jun 4, 11:14 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>>>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >> On Jun 3, 6:43 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>
>>>> > <Snip>
>
>>>> >>>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>>>> >>>> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>
>>>> >>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Â :-)
>
>>>> >>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
>>>> >>> be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>
>>>> >>>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>
>>>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_t...
>
>>>> >>> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
>>>> >>> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
>>>> >>> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
>
>>>> >> Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics. See:
>>>> >> Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral Zone, etc..
>
>>>> > I wouldn't put any of these in the "Political Powerhouses" list! Of NATO
>>>> > or otherwise!
>
>>>> > Daniel
>
>>>> "Power politics" does not mean political powerhouse. Are you a little
>>>> boy?
>
>>> No, Mito!! So, what does "Power politics" mean then, Mito??
>
>>> Daniel
>
>> Sigh!
>
> So, what?? I'm wrong but you've got no idea what right is!!
>
> Daniel
This is a TOS forum. Any discussion of politics with you people would
be a "pearls before swine" type of thing.
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #82424 is a reply to message #81399] |
Sat, 08 June 2013 06:24 |
Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 228 Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wiseguy wrote:
> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanwine@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:f5a2803f-c169-4e3f-8444-99246e7ec432@bw5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
>>
>> Now then, about that 800-pound elephant in the room: NORWAY
>> PRODUCTIONS. What the hell was/is that?
>>
"Norway Corporation" I thought...
>
> Gene Roddenberry's production company.
> Producers or executive producers have their own production companies
> with which the series are co-produced with the major studio.
>
> Rod Serling had Cayuga Productions, Alfred Hitchcock had Shamley
> Productions, Dick Wolf has Dick Wolf Productions, etc.
Ah!
Like Joss Whedon had 'Mutant Enemy'.
Of JJ's 'Bad Robot'.
--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net
Xander Harris to Kendra Young: "Welcome. So, you're a slayer, huh? I like
that in a woman."
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: What's My Line?: Part 2
liam=mail
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #82425 is a reply to message #81452] |
Sat, 08 June 2013 06:31 |
Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 228 Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>> In article <51ab72ce$0$16009$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
>> Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> > Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> >> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and*
>>>> >> Canada. http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>>> >
>>>> > <snip>
>>>> >
>>>> > BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>>>> > One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when
>>>> > you are talking about international organisations that have the
>>>> > US and Canada as member states.
>>>> > Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>>>>
>>>> "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the
>>>> countries in NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I
>>>> think Russia is a member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or
>>>> something!
>>>
>>> Russiia is not a member of NATO. And I'm very much okay with that.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
>>>
>>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two
>>> continents with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>>
>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
>>
>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it
>> would be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>>
>
> Italy is not on the North Atlantic ocean, either, but *is* a member of
> NATO!!
>
> I'd almost accept Wouter Valentijn's notion that it all works if you
> think of it as a combined Europe, except that Switzerland (I think it
> is) is not a member.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
An /entire/ combined Europe? Not so much.
Consider the situation of the World (Europe specifically) in the aftermath
of World War II.
The USSR was a threat and it had already a strong influence/dominance in
Eastern Europe.
The US needed a stable partner (or partners) close to that and of course,
they wanted to protect what they and their allies had fought for in WWII.
Western Europe was in no shape to protect itself and needed a strong friend
to keep it safe. And that might still be the case.
I think the use of the term 'North Atlantic' is good enough for that treaty.
It is what the /involving continents/ (or at least some of the countries on
those continents) have in common when they first signed it.
If they had used something similar to 'ANZUS'....
Just imagine the name they would have to come up with the initial alliance!
:-)
--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net
Xander Harris to Kendra Young: "Welcome. So, you're a slayer, huh? I like
that in a woman."
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: What's My Line?: Part 2
liam=mail
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #82579 is a reply to message #82078] |
Sun, 09 June 2013 00:09 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
MITO MINISTER wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:10 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 11:16 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> > On Jun 4, 11:14 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>>>> > <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>>> >> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>> On Jun 3, 6:43 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>
>>>> >> <Snip>
>>
>>>> >>>>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two continents
>>>> >>>>> with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>>
>>>> >>>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
>>
>>>> >>>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it would
>>>> >>>> be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>>
>>>> >>>>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>>
>>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in volving_t...
>>
>>>> >>>> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States), which is
>>>> >>>> somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't allow any ships with
>>>> >>>> nuclear power or weapons into it's waters.
>>
>>>> >>> Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics. See:
>>>> >>> Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral Zone, etc..
>>
>>>> >> I wouldn't put any of these in the "Political Powerhouses" list! Of NATO
>>>> >> or otherwise!
>>
>>>> >> Daniel
>>
>>>> > "Power politics" does not mean political powerhouse. Are you a little
>>>> > boy?
>>
>>>> No, Mito!! So, what does "Power politics" mean then, Mito??
>>
>>>> Daniel
>>
>>> Sigh!
>>
>> So, what?? I'm wrong but you've got no idea what right is!!
>>
>> Daniel
>
> This is a TOS forum. Any discussion of politics with you people would
> be a "pearls before swine" type of thing.
So sorry we are so far below the required intelligence level!!
One wonders why you are hanging out here with us plebs, then??
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #82580 is a reply to message #82425] |
Sun, 09 June 2013 00:23 |
Daniel47@teranews.com
Messages: 188 Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>> Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <51ab72ce$0$16009$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, "Wouter
>>> Valentijn" <liam@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> > Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> >> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
>>>> >>> Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> As for NORAD, that is something of the United States *and*
>>>> >>> Canada. http://www.norad.mil/Home.aspx
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defens e_Command
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> And yes, they left out Mexico.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> <snip>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> BTW, I'm puzzeled why NORAD was envoked in the first place.
>>>> >> One might as just as well mention 'NATO', or even the 'UN' when
>>>> >> you are talking about international organisations that have the
>>>> >> US and Canada as member states.
>>>> >> Unless we live in the Cusslerverse, which is not the case. :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > "NATO" has intrigued me, as, for a long time, most of the
>>>> > countries in NATO are *not* North Atlantic nations, and now I
>>>> > think Russia is a member of NATO, or has "Observer" status or
>>>> > something!
>>>>
>>>> Russiia is not a member of NATO. And I'm very much okay with that.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
>>>>
>>>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the two
>>>> continents with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>>>
>>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. :-)
>>>
>>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no reason it
>>> would be really included in anything but a courtesy way.
>>>
>>
>> Italy is not on the North Atlantic ocean, either, but *is* a member of
>> NATO!!
>>
>> I'd almost accept Wouter Valentijn's notion that it all works if you
>> think of it as a combined Europe, except that Switzerland (I think it
>> is) is not a member.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
>
>
> An /entire/ combined Europe? Not so much.
> Consider the situation of the World (Europe specifically) in the aftermath
> of World War II.
> The USSR was a threat and it had already a strong influence/dominance in
> Eastern Europe.
> The US needed a stable partner (or partners) close to that and of course,
> they wanted to protect what they and their allies had fought for in WWII.
> Western Europe was in no shape to protect itself and needed a strong friend
> to keep it safe. And that might still be the case.
> I think the use of the term 'North Atlantic' is good enough for that treaty.
> It is what the /involving continents/ (or at least some of the countries on
> those continents) have in common when they first signed it.
> If they had used something similar to 'ANZUS'....
> Just imagine the name they would have to come up with the initial alliance!
> :-)
and, over time, things do change, Wouter, so the ANZUS treaty is now,
sort of, AUS and ANZ, with the NZUS part being worked on again!!
Daniel
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #82691 is a reply to message #82579] |
Sun, 09 June 2013 15:59 |
Wiseguy
Messages: 242 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Daniel47@teranews.com" <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote in
news:RdTst.20788$6_4.14294@newsfe31.iad:
> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 10:10 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> On Jun 5, 11:16 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>>>> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>>> > MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >> On Jun 4, 11:14 pm, "Danie...@teranews.com"
>>>> >> <d...@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
>>>> >>> MITO MINISTER wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Jun 3, 6:43 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Notice that most members are in Europe or North America, the
>>>> >>>>>> two continents with the North Atlantic Ocean in between them.
>>>
>>>> >>>>> That's what NATO stands for: North Atlantic Treaty
>>>> >>>>> Organisation. :-)
>>>
>>>> >>>>> Since Russia isn't on the North Atlantic ocean, there's no
>>>> >>>>> reason it would be really included in anything but a courtesy
>>>> >>>>> way.
>>>
>>>> >>>>>> The US is or was involved in several other treaties:
>>>
>>>> >>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_alliances_in vol
>>>> >>>>> ving_t...
>>>
>>>> >>>>> Another one is ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, United States),
>>>> >>>>> which is somewhat still intact, although New Zealand won't
>>>> >>>>> allow any ships with nuclear power or weapons into it's
>>>> >>>>> waters.
>>>
>>>> >>>> Membership in NATO is not about geography but power politics.
>>>> >>>> See: Turkey, Greece, the Baltic states, the Romulan Neutral
>>>> >>>> Zone, etc..
>>>
>>>> >>> I wouldn't put any of these in the "Political Powerhouses" list!
>>>> >>> Of NATO or otherwise!
>>>
>>>> >>> Daniel
>>>
>>>> >> "Power politics" does not mean political powerhouse. Are you a
>>>> >> little boy?
>>>
>>>> > No, Mito!! So, what does "Power politics" mean then, Mito??
>>>
>>>> > Daniel
>>>
>>>> Sigh!
>>>
>>> So, what?? I'm wrong but you've got no idea what right is!!
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>
>> This is a TOS forum. Any discussion of politics with you people would
>> be a "pearls before swine" type of thing.
>
> So sorry we are so far below the required intelligence level!!
>
> One wonders why you are hanging out here with us plebs, then??
>
> Daniel
>
>
Apparently it takes some intelligence to know how to use a period.
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #99823 is a reply to message #82580] |
Sun, 28 July 2013 06:25 |
Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 228 Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Daniel47@teranews.com wrote:
> Wouter Valentijn wrote:
<snip>
>
> and, over time, things do change, Wouter, so the ANZUS treaty is now,
> sort of, AUS and ANZ, with the NZUS part being worked on again!!
>
Everything needs work. :-)
--
Wouter Valentijn http://www.j3v.net
Xander Harris to Kendra Young: "Welcome. So, you're a slayer, huh? I like
that in a woman."
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: What's My Line?: Part 2
http://zeppodunsel.blogspot.nl/
liam=mail
|
|
|
Re: Show of hands [message #316137 is a reply to message #69889] |
Tue, 12 April 2016 14:00 |
Wouter Valentijn
Messages: 228 Registered: December 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Op 11-4-2016 om 20:43 schreef Talwyn:
> To: ToolPackinMama
> Re: Re: Show of hands
> By: ToolPackinMama to alt.tv.star-trek.tos,alt.startrek on Sun May 26 2013 05:26 pm
>
>> From Newsgroup: alt.startrek
>>
>> On 5/26/2013 4:24 PM, Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>> I was born in 1954, so I got to see TOS when it was in its first run on
>>> NBC in 1966.
>>
>> Hey me too!
>
> How lucky you guys were to see it first run!
>
> Allen
> --- Synchronet 3.16c-Win32 NewsLink 1.103
> LiveWire BBS - Louisville, KY - telnet://livewirebbs.ddns.net
>
Here too, born in 1966. First run in The Netherlands was in 1971.
BTW... Do you know Tim Bruening?
--
www.woutervalentijn.net
Abraham Ford: "Nibble on that."
The Walking Dead (s06e09): 'No Way Out'
liam=mail
|
|
|