Thanks for getting this answer out-it's what I was thinking-
having been a military wife, and lived in areas where there's these little
psuedo-military cults, I would be the last one to want to be a part of some
weird, para-military organization!
I think that Scott might have over-reacted?
Just because I see the connection between the car and the aeroplane, this
doesn't mean I'm going to start saluting people! And just because I like the
idea of the name NASS-it doesn't mean that I'm some sort of
wanna-be-kraut-killer-kid!
It took me so long to comment on Scott's posting because I was really quite
shocked-I kept wondering where he-or anyone got the idea that we wanted to
salute each other and pull rank!
Laura
Vita brevis est: rapide agite, vigore strigate!
----- Original Message -----
From: Banbury, Terrence <Terrence.Banbury@dnr.state.oh.us>
To: 'Scott Hall' <sch8489@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Cc: <spitfires@autox.team.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 5:40 AM
Subject: RE: Plane vs car
>
> So, Scott, are you saying that you think we are forming a whacko militia
> group of terrorists? I think most in your camp have taken this to the
> extreme. It wasn't intended that way, and I think when we settle on the
> logo, etc. you'll all see we aren't a bunch of immature
> kid-wanna-be-a-kraut-killer types looking to grab some glory 'cause we
ain't
> got nuthin' goin' in our life types. I appreciate your comments and
> concern, and if it turns out the club is more like your description, than
> mine, I won't be a part of it. In fact I think it would be an extremely
> small club.
> Terry Banbury
>
> > ----------
> > From: Scott Hall[SMTP:sch8489@garnet.acns.fsu.edu]
> > Reply To: Scott Hall
> > Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 1:35 AM
> > To: HD50EL@aol.com
> > Cc: spitfires@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Plane vs car
> >
> >
> > okay, let me deliniate my points
> >
> > a) wrt to political correctness, well, I've never been branded with that
> > label, so I can't disagree with wanting to leave if it gets too touchy
> > feely.
> >
> > b) lots of people I know like my spit(fire, ahem). of those people, I
> > doubt any more than one or two even know what a supermarine spitfire is,
> > what it did, or why.
> >
> > c) triumph associated the car with the plane because the brits _adore_
the
> > memory/image of the plane. it literally _saved_ their country. I seem
to
> > remember reading somewhere that the name spitfire was plastered on
> > hundreds of products in britian in an effort to sell the line(s). sort
of
> > as if f14 tomcats shot down hoardes of russian bombers every day for a
> > year and saved the east coast from complete devestation. the word
> > 'tomcat' would be revered. triumph did this to _sell_ a car. just
'cause
> > they did it in attempt to raise sales doesn't make it a good idea--i.e.
> > two wrongs don't make a right.
> >
> > d) the plane is/was an instrument of _war_. it was developed and used
for
> > the sole and primary purpose of _killing_ people. that's it. stop,
right
> > now, and actually _think_ about that. think about it again. and again.
> >
> > would you plaster an image of an m16 on the side of a car if it's
> > name/model number happened to coincide with the car? how about a
> > hand grenade? a tank? how about a picture of a b17 carpet bombing
> > dresden? or one being blown out of the sky by a/a fire, or maybe an
> > me109? or how about a spitfire shooting down a junkers? you see where
> > I'm going with this? the above were made for a _serious_ purpose. an
> > _important_ purpose. people were killed by and died in them in an
attempt
> > to protect our country. I really like my spitfire, but it will never
rise
> > to this level of importance. the car is a trivial, fun thing. war is
> > neither trivial nor fun. too many people sacrificed too much for me to
> > treat it at all otherwise.
> >
> > e) a wwii vet has license to give you a pass. you/we don't have license
> > to accept it. he can be nonchalant and gracious about it because he was
> > there, and you weren't. he _earned_ the right to act gracious about the
> > subject. you (I assume) did not. ask the vet if he wants to relive all
> > his old war experiences, though, and I'll bet you he doesn't. I don't
> > know about your relatives, but as a very small child I couldn't get much
> > at all out of either of my grandfathers about too much of their
> > experiences. both flew in bombers, and both were wounded. both had a
> > few stories they told if asked, but that was it, and I was told by my
> > parents not to press the issue too much. they were kind to the immature
> > kid who wanted to hear about how cool and glorious it was, and they were
> > nonchalant to a degree about the whole thing, but as an adult, I can see
> > in retrospect how they never brought it up, didn't seem to want to talk
> > about it, and were ready to ask me about school when I asked them about
> > what it was like to be in the war. it was the same sort of look my
uncle,
> > an infantry marine in vietnam (wounded and nearly killed), got when my 6
> > year-old cousin would run around making 'blam' noises with his toy
> > guns. he never looked too excited about the idea.
> >
> > this 'squadron' idea reminds me of my cousin. it sounds a hair too
close
> > to immaturity, to 'wow, that's soooooo cool, tell me again what it was
> > like to kill the krauts, dude. was it cool, huh?'
> >
> > I'll agree most vets wouldn't object, but ask how many wanna brag about
> > how many of the enemy they killed and I'll bet you don't have many
takers.
> > I think their attitude in this respect (towards a spit 'squardon', with
> > capitans and military patches) should be viewed as the same attitude my
> > uncle had towards his son. they know you mean well, so they'll give you
> > the pass. that doesn't make it right. if you _really_ want to show
> > respect to the vets of wwii (or any war, really) the local v.a. hospital
> > would love a check, I'll bet. or just volunteer your time. visit a vet
> > who doesn't have family. old people love to talk, to anybody. I'll bet
> > they'll appreciate that one hell of a lot more than a sticker on the
side
> > of a car.
> >
> > the bottom line is, to my way of thinking, I'd feel like I was stealing
a
> > part of something I didn't help earn, an honor I didn't help build. it
> > isn't my place to share in the shine of what they did, because I wasn't
a
> > part of creating it. I did not fight in a war, and I think it shows
lack
> > of respect, _and_ a general lack of maturity to trivialize those who did
> > by pretending my car and its associated club stack up with what they
did.
> > I'd probably feel differently if I was a vet, but I'm not.
> >
> > and if you think it honors veterans to put a spitfire sticker on the
side
> > of your car and call yourself 'colonel smith of the n.a.s.s., sir
> > <salute>', or 'rear admiral jones', go for it. like you said, they
> > probably won't complain. and those who object don't have to come into
the
> > tree fort. when my cousin gets his license, I'll buy him a parts spit
> > and send him your way.
> >
> > scott
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 HD50EL@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > For those of you on the list who assume that any reference to the
> > Supermarine
> > > Spitfire, or use of aviation terms, would be offensive to WW2 vets,
why
> > don't
> > > you go find a WW2 vet, and ask them! You may be surprised at what most
> > of
> > > them will say to you. I have asked a few vets as to what their
thoughts
> > about
> > > it were, and all of them thought it was a really neat idea. So here is
> > what I
> > > have to say about it. Membership in the NASS should be 100% voluntary,
> > which
> > > means if you don't like the connection the Triumph Spitfire has with
the
> >
> > > Supermarine Spitfire, and WW2, then you don't have to be a part of it!
> > My two
> > > cents,
> > >
> > > John C. Smith
> > > 75 Spitfire
> >
|