Com-Central.net

I DO awfully hope you're being quoted out of context...or maybe just robbed, whatever. I feel it is my solemn duty to bring this sordid matter to your attention, pronto. In any case, here is some lamentable reading:

"Feedback! Read what the many thousands of Soldiers who call the M113 the "Gavin" have to say about making it "official"!

Roy A Lingle writes in:

"General Gavin was a very good leader and should have something named after him. I did some time on M113(Mo-gaser) and the M113A1. I spent a year with the 4th (Light/Airborne)/68th Armor, 82nd Airborne Division. That division didn't want anything to do with us treadheads."



Source:
Way near bottom of page:
www.geocities.com/gavinpetition/

BTW, there is a place to vote on the petition to field 10,000 vehicles right now and name them you-know-what. Also, you can make comments, but don't be astonished if what you say and mean gets posted as something else....

Gotta' go...feeling upchucky alluva' sudden....

*(Edited by moderator for content and stuff....)
**(then reedited by a calmer individual... )

" Let slip & Cry Havoc...."

Now, now...I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation (like being ripped off...). Roy would never knowingly violate his CIA pledge. The Curmudgeons In Armor stand firmly against this sort of nonsense and only a deliberate "editting" of a carfeully crafted letter to the aforementioned website could account for this perversion of reality.

Now, a petition to rename the M114 the "Lingle"...I think there's a real groundswell of support for that sort of thing...

- Dontos

*(Edited by moderator for content and stuff....)
**(then reedited by a calmer individual... )

" Let slip & Cry Havoc...."

But believe me...we understand!

I wish to register my intent to sign a petition naming the M114 the "Lingle", and to also sign one damning to hell anyone who calls the M113 anything but a 'Track', a 'Can', an 'M113', or a 'PC'.

"Thousands of soldiers", my buttocks. More like one, and not a soldier at all, most likely.

Too bad the Brits got in line first to name the C-47 the 'Dakota', for that would have been a perfect aircraft to have been named after General Gavin.

My tuppence
Russ

- Russ_Buchan

...Too bad the Brits got in line first to name the C-47 the 'Dakota'...

Russ:

I thought the C47 was the "Goonie Bird"...a fitting name for the 'Spark-meister' perhaps?

Ok, i have been thinking about this for a while.....and now it is time to call in the experts. (That would be you guys.)

Can anybody think of any armoured vehicles - preferably American - that had a reputation for catching fire or blowing up really easily? *Other* than the Sherman, i mean. Experimental and prototype vehicles are acceptable, and actually preferable for this exercise.

Because.....i think we need something we can name a "Sparks".

Which is why it should ignite or blow up rapidly and without warning.....just like our dear Mister Sparks.

It should also have a reputation for unreliability.....just like our dear Mister Sparks' "facts".

And it shouldn't already have a name. Because to give a name to a vehicle that already has one would just be wrong, right?

Soooo.....any ideas?

Can *you* find a suitable Sparkmobile?

- Jinx

Because.....i think we need something we can name a "Sparks".


And it shouldn't already have a name. Because to give a name to a vehicle that already has one would just be wrong, right?

Soooo.....any ideas?

Can *you* find a suitable Sparkmobile?

Got your vehicle right here, Pal. And advocated by noone other:

www.combatreform.com/l...tiontn.jpg

...and because I know you think I'm making this up:

www.geocities.com/militaryvehicles/

...where you can see the man his-self.....

- Jinx

Can anybody think of any armoured vehicles - preferably American - that had a reputation for catching fire or blowing up really easily? *Other* than the Sherman, i mean. Experimental and prototype vehicles are acceptable, and actually preferable for this exercise.

Because.....i think we need something we can name a "Sparks".

Which is why it should ignite or blow up rapidly and without warning.....just like our dear Mister Sparks.

It should also have a reputation for unreliability.....just like our dear Mister Sparks' "facts".

And it shouldn't already have a name. Because to give a name to a vehicle that already has one would just be wrong, right?

Soooo.....any ideas?

Can *you* find a suitable Sparkmobile?

How about this one: The Sparks mobile

Oh wait...never mind. You were asking for an AFV. My mistake.

- JG300-Ascout

Got your vehicle right here, Pal. And advocated by noone other:

www.combatreform.com/l...tiontn.jpg

...and because I know you think I'm making this up:

www.geocities.com/militaryvehicles/

...where you can see the man his-self.....

Cripes! You'd think he'd want a bike with at least a suspension fork! He can't even pick good mountain bikes.

- toadmanstankpictures

- JG300-Ascout

Got your vehicle right here, Pal. And advocated by noone other:

www.combatreform.com/l...tiontn.jpg

...and because I know you think I'm making this up:

www.geocities.com/militaryvehicles/

...where you can see the man his-self.....

Cripes! You'd think he'd want a bike with at least a suspension fork!

Wuss....

- JG300-Ascout

I DO awfully hope you're being quoted out of context...or maybe just robbed, whatever. I feel it is my solemn duty to bring this sordid matter to your attention, pronto. In any case, here is some lamentable reading:

"Feedback! Read what the many thousands of Soldiers who call the M113 the "Gavin" have to say about making it "official"!

Roy A Lingle writes in:

"General Gavin was a very good leader and should have something named after him. I did some time on M113(Mo-gaser) and the M113A1. I spent a year with the 4th (Light/Airborne)/68th Armor, 82nd Airborne Division. That division didn't want anything to do with us treadheads."



Source:
Way near bottom of page:
www.geocities.com/gavinpetition/

BTW, there is a place to vote on the petition to field 10,000 vehicles right now and name them you-know-what. Also, you can make comments, but don't be astonished if what you say and mean gets posted as something else....

Gotta' go...feeling upchucky alluva' sudden....

Hi JG300-Ascout! Hi Folks!

I did in fact write those words up on that wild and crazy site of Mike Sparks!

In my defense I can only claim that Mr. Sparks edited my post. I wish I had made a copy of what I had wrote , but the best I can do is try to remember the sentences that he deleted from my post.

If you read that group of four sentences, I think you will notice that the first sentence does not tie in with the second sentence. Now I know that you all know I am not the best writer and spelling around here, but I have been trying to do better and I think that disconnection between sentence one and two is far worst that my normal writing.

I remember saying something like a new vehicle should be named after Gen Gavin, not a vehicle that was starting to move into the history books.

My post did not support his position on naming the M113 after anyone. He
however edited out all the sentences that he didn't want seen on his long list of supporters.

To me, his actions with my non-supportive post makes it clear that Mr. Sparks is one individual that can not be trusted.

That was a test, Mr. Sparks failed the test.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi JG300-Ascout! Hi Folks!

"I did in fact write those words up on that <snip> site of Mike Sparks!

I can only claim that Mr. Sparks edited my post.
If you read that group of four sentences, I think you will notice that the first sentence does <snip> tie in with the second sentence. I know that you all know I am <snip> the best writer around here.

I remember saying something like a new vehicle should be named after Gen Gavin, <snip> a vehicle that was starting to move into the history books.

My post did <snip> support his position on naming the M113 after anyone.
<snip>
To me, his actions with my <snip> supportive post makes it clear that Mr. Sparks is one individual that can <snip> be trusted. "

<snip>

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Hi Roy!

Yep...I think we all have a pretty good idea how that post might have been manipulated by an unprincipled piglet. It's mighty easy to alter someone's comments to suit your own agenda when you have your own vanity website and the means to alter at will, the substance of an honorable persons' stated position.

If even a"Wild Sau" can do it, I bet a domesticated pig would have no difficulty in accomplishing the same task.

- Jinx

Ok, i have been thinking about this for a while.....and now it is time to call in the experts. (That would be you guys.)

Can anybody think of any armoured vehicles - preferably American - that had a reputation for catching fire or blowing up really easily? *Other* than the Sherman, i mean. Experimental and prototype vehicles are acceptable, and actually preferable for this exercise.

Because.....i think we need something we can name a "Sparks".

Which is why it should ignite or blow up rapidly and without warning.....just like our dear Mister Sparks.

It should also have a reputation for unreliability.....just like our dear Mister Sparks' "facts".

And it shouldn't already have a name. Because to give a name to a vehicle that already has one would just be wrong, right?

Soooo.....any ideas?

Can *you* find a suitable Sparkmobile?

Did Ford ever prototype an armored version of the Pinto?

David

This whole subject brings to mind a 'Pink Floyd' tune...

" The evidence before the court is, incontrivertable, theres no need for the Jury to retire.

In all my years of judging, I've never seen before, a case more deserving that, of full penalities of LAW!! ............FILLS ME WITH THE URGE TO DEFICATE!!!"

How I love 'The Wall"