So “siloworld” is more reliable than a book published by the National Park Service?
Do you have something published by the US government to back up your assertions?
If you really used to be an ex-Air Force officer then I assume you would have.
Okay, how about this:
http://www.nps.gov/NR/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/128mimi/128facts3.htm
Yes. I can’t see how you can accuse me of plagiarism when I was just stating the facts that every missiler knows. The facilities technician crewdog told me that the doors were 110 tons. Was he lying? I don’t think so.
I grew up in Newport RI, a Navy town, and had several friends who’s parents served at the base and I remember when watching that as a kid, one of the fathers, who’d served aboard a nuclear submarine said he found the idea of the guys in the bunker being armed difficult to believe, though obviously he wasn’t Air Force and could have been wrong.
He thought they just put it in for the added drama of having the guy threaten his friend.
We carried .38 revolvers to protect the Sealed Authenticators and launch keys that were located in a steel box pained red above the DMCCC’s console.
Yes, yes, we all watched Wargames.
Nothing about that says “liberal”, though, just “Hollywood inaccuracy”. For that matter, the computer equipment Matthew Broderick is shown using is grossly inadequate for the tasks at hand, but that’s just fantasy without any particular political bent.
The technical aspects of (1) and (3)… big deal. Virtually every movie about something military screws up stuff like that - World War II battles being staged with ship types that didn’t exist at the time, or a character is shown taking off in an F-14 and later landing in an F-15, while talking about how much he loves his F-16.
(2) - Missileers never do drugs? Maybe you just didn’t get invited to certain parties. But fine, whatever, I could buy that missile crews were routinely subjected to urine tests and whatnot. In any case, Spencer’s character’s hobbies are not relevant to the story at hand. I don’t see how a fondness for good weed makes him a liberal. Possibly it sets him up as a rebel and rulebreaker that would hesitate to turn a key just because a computer told him to. Heck, the missileers may as well have been chatting about sports as they headed to their duty stations.
(4) and (5) - I know these aren’t accurate and that missile crews routinely went through launch drills such that the events in the movie shouldn’t have come as such a surprise to Spencer and Madsen. One element I did find annoying was that we’re treated to cutaway shots of the missiles being prepped with silo doors opening (during a snowstorm, yet!), gantries being retracted, engines warming up and whatnot, and the whole thing turns out to be a drill anyway. Great. Now you can spend a day or so cleaning up the mess and re-prepping the missiles.
In any case, that scene is necessary to set up the larger premise - the phasing out of manned missile sites because of perceived human unreliability, giving the runaway computer system the potential for independent launch. It’s easy to say that would never happen, either (because, of course, it never did), but the movie is a work of fiction, after all.
In retrospect, I guess it would have been more of a twist for Spencer to be the casual hophead and Madsen the dead-serous professional, and yet for Madsen to be the one to blink at “launch” time (thus showing how unpredictable and unreliable humans can be), but no matter.
Heck, if you want to nitpick the movie, how can Barry Corbin’s character (presumably the NORAD Commander) casually order the DEFCON level up and down (including going directly from “one” to “five”) without direct input from the president? It’s easy to nitpick this movie - it’s easy to nitpick any movie - but “liberal fantasy” ? You’re reaching, there, I presume because you’re so determined to annoy “liberals” (since you’re either a conservative or a troll, or both) that facts are irrelevant.
[Quote=Wikipedia]
Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the “wrongful appropriation,” “close imitation,” or “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
[/Quote]
I’d appreciate it if you could explain for the audience how your word choice just happened, by pure coincidence, to be a near-duplicate of the text I linked to, and that quoted by Hentor in Post 162.
Why are people arguing with the liar? To convince him that he’s lying? He already knows this people. He’ll just continue the game of cherry picking the points he can make some sort of response to.
To enjoy watching him squirm? OK, I admit it, I’m a bad, bad man.
SSN-690. It was not a Trident boat.
I skimmed the thread looking to see if the subject-troll was an example of Poe’s law or a Deep Cover Conservative. Instead, it’s merely clear that he’s faking some service background. :rolleyes:
So… anyone want to take a stab at the demographics here? Is he some 17 year old angsty kid shaped by WND, Brietbart, etc. and angrily expressing himself as best he can? Is he a 42 year old mild liberal with a tedious job that offers plenty of time to play dress-up and lets him try and get the goat of both conservatives (who are embarassed that he’s distracting the conversation from actual topics) and liberals (who, when taking him as a poster in earnest, are dismayed at the dismal level of discourse)? And perhaps most importantly, if he’s going to shoot the goat out of a PVC cannon, what’s the best way to go about it?
Reliable urine tests weren’t even available before 1980, so I doubt it.
Did he also tell you that everyone puts the word “vote” in quotation marks followed by a verbatim duplication of text in parenthesis explaining what you meant by the term?
It’s close, but moonshot mentions “two seconds”, while the book does not (the book says the two officers turn the keys “in unison”).
It seems similar enough to me that it’s likely that both moonshot’s post and that book got their data from the same source (like perhaps an Air Force training manual), but it’s not clear to me that he lifted his post straight from that book (the 110-ton thing and the 2-seconds are different enough that, IMO, it’s at least not plagiarised from that particular book).
Do you know Tom Perry? He was the skipper of that boat.
Just to be clear, my source was not the book, but an NPS document that was even more consistent with moonshot’s text. Interestingly it referenced the aformentioned book for the crucial text.
How can you explain the identical text that I posted and his?
I have to say- while I think moonshot has ridiculous political views relatively unencumbered by facts, and his views on history and warfare are monstrous, I’m not convinced he’s lying about his service.
People in the military, particularly some of the very technical specialties, almost have their own language as far as the technology and procedures. On the submarine, certain phrases would be used and bandied about over and over again, exactly word-for-word.
It’s possible he’s lying, but the apparent similarity in his post and that book is not enough evidence to convince me.
Doesn’t have to be a word-for-word duplicate, per Post 168.
Anyway, I’m fine with however people want to interpret his word choice. The point has been made, and I’ll leave it there.
It is closer (though the tonnage is different yet again; perhaps the tonnage was not the same for every single missile door?). It’s also the most straight-forward way to say those things, as far as I can tell.