Marine Poll
John LaBrecque
a poll of Marines, Reserve Marines, Retired Marines and former Marines.
The question I asked was:
Is he (Clinton) the person you want as your Commander in Chief?
The responses in the first hour the question was up were:
NO = 100%
YES = 0%
I'm not going to post where the poll is as some may be active or reserve
Marines and subject to the UCMJ that states they can not say anything
negative about their CIC. Some of the explanations of their opinions
have not been in the best of taste!
--
Semper Fi
Jack L
http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
http://members.aol.com/jitb/usmc/usmc.htm
My son, Marc, is now one of the few, the proud,
a United States Marine.
"Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995
KREB
>"Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
>they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
>have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995
Keith said
Yes we all know Reagans quotes, or some I guess don't. He forgot that some
of his quotes were from movies. Alas some do get sucked in.
I guess movie stars do make good politicians, they should, politicians
sometimes don't get their facts straight.
Keith
Craig E Pangus
>
> With all this talk about Presidential approval polls, I decided to start
> a poll of Marines, Reserve Marines, Retired Marines and former Marines.
> The question I asked was:
>
> Is he (Clinton) the person you want as your Commander in Chief?
>
> The responses in the first hour the question was up were:
>
> NO = 100%
> YES = 0%
>
> I'm not going to post where the poll is as some may be active or reserve
> Marines and subject to the UCMJ that states they can not say anything
> negative about their CIC. Some of the explanations of their opinions
> have not been in the best of taste!
>
> --
aiding and abetting them in hiding their crime.
Besides, since when did soldiers chose their own commanders?
Mark Edward Balcom
>
> Besides, since when did soldiers chose their own commanders?
Have you ever spent any time in military service?
There is no such thing as a good leader without a loyal crew.
Ask any smart assed, overbearing officer who has ever been passed over
for advancement, or cashiered.
Mark
m124
Bill Mechlenburg
For discussion of Education, Political & Tax Reform
http://home.att.net/~wmech
Craig E Pangus wrote in message <369961...@sprintmail.com>...
> Besides, since when did soldiers chose their own commanders?
He did not say anything about marines choosing their commander. The
question was "would you WANT (if you had a choice)Clinton as your
commander?"
Bob Fisher
wrote:
>With all this talk about Presidential approval polls, I decided to start
>a poll of Marines, Reserve Marines, Retired Marines and former Marines.
>The question I asked was:
>
>Is he (Clinton) the person you want as your Commander in Chief?
>
>The responses in the first hour the question was up were:
>
>NO = 100%
>YES = 0%
>
>I'm not going to post where the poll is as some may be active or reserve
>Marines and subject to the UCMJ that states they can not say anything
>negative about their CIC. Some of the explanations of their opinions
>have not been in the best of taste!
>Semper Fi
>
>Jack L
A couple of weeks ago, in a Christmas call to a relative who is an
American Embassy Marine guard, I asked his opinion of Clinton's
transgressions and asked if there had been any discussions of the
stituation by his fellow Marines.
He replied that prior to and during the House impeachment hearings
there had been considerable discussion in the barracks. The general
consensus of opinion was that "if Clinton had turned down a free b...
j.., he would have been a f.. (derogatory term for homosexual)".
Additionally, these Marines added some conditions that would have
governed their own behavior: the girl would have to have been an
American citizen and (if they had been on duty at the time) they would
have retained a hold on their rifles during the act. (There was much
levity in a discussion of the definition of the word "rifle".)
There was also apparently some discussion and levity about how Clinton
had done the equivalent by retaining hold of his phone. The barracks
was split about 80/20 on whether oral sex (a b... j..) was actually
sex, with the majority maintaining that it was not.
The opinion was also expressed that not one Marine seriously thought
the timing of the December attack on Iraq was governed by Clinton's
impeachment problems and that most Marines had been expecting it to
happen "for weeks". When the timing of the attack was discussed on
CNN, about a dozen Marines viewing the TV coverage jeered and swore at
the congressmen who suggested that Clinton timed the attack to delay
the impeachment.
I would far rather depend on this report of Marine views than on an
Internet poll whose location is not disclosed. The claim of such a
poll sounds very much like Joe McCarthy's claims of "I have here a
list of 257 Communists now working in the State Department". The
motives of announcing the results of such a "poll" are likewise
reminiscent of the McCarthy witch hunts of the '50s. Besides, if you
only reveal the location of a poll to those who share your political
views, how could you NOT get results that support your views 100%?
BF
Don Ocean
wish I had your imagination. Wag the Marine....
Don Ocean
Bob Fisher
wrote:
>Did you say an Embassy Marine? Now that is a nice piece of fiction!! I sure
>wish I had your imagination. Wag the Marine....
>Don Ocean
Not fiction at all. In fact, I'm printing out this thread and mailing
it to him. I'm sure he'll be delighted to find that his existence is
in question.
BF
John LaBrecque
>
> wm...@worldnet.att.net
> For discussion of Education, Political & Tax Reform
> http://home.att.net/~wmech
>
> Craig E Pangus wrote in message <369961...@sprintmail.com>...
> >>
> >> With all this talk about Presidential approval polls, I decided to start
> >> a poll of Marines, Reserve Marines, Retired Marines and former Marines.
> >> The question I asked was:
> >>
> >> Is he (Clinton) the person you want as your Commander in Chief?
> >>
> >> The responses in the first hour the question was up were:
> >>
> >> NO = 100%
> >> YES = 0%
> >>
> >> I'm not going to post where the poll is as some may be active or reserve
> >> Marines and subject to the UCMJ that states they can not say anything
> >> negative about their CIC. Some of the explanations of their opinions
> >> have not been in the best of taste!
> >>
> > So not only are you encouraging marines to break the UCMJ you are
> >aiding and abetting them in hiding their crime.
> > Besides, since when did soldiers chose their own commanders?
>
> He did not say anything about marines choosing their commander. The
> question was "would you WANT (if you had a choice)Clinton as your
> commander?"
And, Mr. Pangus made a couple other mistakes. I haven't encouraged any
Marine to make a negative opinion of the character or values of their
Commander in Chief. I only asked for a yes/no answer on if they thought
Clinton should be their CIC. But, they (Marines being Marines) feel
they should give their reasons for saying "no". The other mistake is
Mr. Pangus doesn't realize that these members of "The Brotherhood" are
not "soldiers" but Marines.
--
Semper Fi
John LaBrecque
>
> Did you say an Embassy Marine? Now that is a nice piece of fiction!! I sure
> wish I had your imagination. Wag the Marine....
> Don Ocean
>
I doubt Bob Fisher even knows a Marine much less a Marine who's unit
proudly displays "Blessed are the Gatekeepers" as one of their logo's.
Over the past 40 years, I've met many Embassy Marines and seriously
doubt his description of their "barracks talk". His little story is
more like what liberal Hollywood has tried to convince people about the
character of Marines. If the active and reserve Marines hadn't voiced
their reasons for voting "no" on the question, I might have given the
source. I don't want these men and women getting in trouble for venting
about their CIC. Also, I don't want some of the radical idiots that
post to these political newsgroups trying to spoil the poll.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: With all this talk about Presidential approval polls, I decided to start
: a poll of Marines, Reserve Marines, Retired Marines and former Marines.
: The question I asked was:
: Is he (Clinton) the person you want as your Commander in Chief?
: The responses in the first hour the question was up were:
: NO = 100%
: YES = 0%
: I'm not going to post where the poll is as some may be active or reserve
: Marines and subject to the UCMJ that states they can not say anything
: negative about their CIC. Some of the explanations of their opinions
: have not been in the best of taste!
Great! Shows that Clinton is keeping the military in check and they don't
like it. And what will be fun is when the WHCs nominate a war wimp to run
against Vietnam vet, Gore. Then we'll see that it's money that talks.
--
Buddy K
"God damn it, the military, they're a bunch of greedy bastards. They want
more officers' clubs and more men to shine their shoes. The sons of
bitches are not interested in this country."
--the Nixon Tapes
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Craig E Pangus wrote:
: >
: > Besides, since when did soldiers chose their own commanders?
: Have you ever spent any time in military service?
: There is no such thing as a good leader without a loyal crew.
: Ask any smart assed, overbearing officer who has ever been passed over
: for advancement, or cashiered.
I hear Gen. Pinochet is looking for someone to polish his boots. Perhaps
you'd like to apply.
John LaBrecque
the name of White Trash Willy's dog is?
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: AHHH!! More words of wit from Buddy K. OBTW.....Does anyone know what
: the name of White Trash Willy's dog is?
The "professional marine" again shows why his motto is "Whimper Fi."
Mark Edward Balcom
>
> The "professional marine" again shows why his motto is "Whimper Fi."
>
Or, perhaps he can't read.
Every word that comes from buddy k is either a lie, an insult, or both.
He is a hypocrite.
He is a welcher.
Mark
Craig E Pangus
>
> Bill Mechlenburg wrote:
> >
> > wm...@worldnet.att.net
> > For discussion of Education, Political & Tax Reform
> > http://home.att.net/~wmech
> >
> > Craig E Pangus wrote in message <369961...@sprintmail.com>...
> > >>
> > >> With all this talk about Presidential approval polls, I decided to start
> > >> a poll of Marines, Reserve Marines, Retired Marines and former Marines.
> > >> The question I asked was:
> > >>
> > >> Is he (Clinton) the person you want as your Commander in Chief?
> > >>
> > >> The responses in the first hour the question was up were:
> > >>
> > >> NO = 100%
> > >> YES = 0%
> > >>
> > >> I'm not going to post where the poll is as some may be active or reserve
> > >> Marines and subject to the UCMJ that states they can not say anything
> > >> negative about their CIC. Some of the explanations of their opinions
> > >> have not been in the best of taste!
> > >>
> > > So not only are you encouraging marines to break the UCMJ you are
> > >aiding and abetting them in hiding their crime.
> >
> > question was "would you WANT (if you had a choice)Clinton as your
> > commander?"
It does not make one bit of difference who troops want as their
commander is the point I was making. A unit may hate their commander
and still function extremely well. I will admit that there have been
many instances of line officers being hit by 'friendly fire', especially
when it was believed that officer was likely to get a lot of men killed
needlessly. But that is never sanctioned by field grade officers and
not at all the case with a Commander in Chief.
You conveniently ignore the main thrust of my comment, i.e.: the poll
solicits public comments, many negative, about the CIC which is against
the UCMJ and then aids and abets (conspires) to shield the offenders.
>
> And, Mr. Pangus made a couple other mistakes. I haven't encouraged any
> Marine to make a negative opinion of the character or values of their
> Commander in Chief. I only asked for a yes/no answer on if they thought
> Clinton should be their CIC.
And any answer to the negative is prima facie a negative comment about
the CIC and hence a violation of the UCMJ. Your hiding the poll, (if it
even exists) is conspiracy and incitement. All in all worse than
Clinton's behavior.
> But, they (Marines being Marines) feel
> they should give their reasons for saying "no". The other mistake is
> Mr. Pangus doesn't realize that these members of "The Brotherhood" are
> not "soldiers" but Marines.
Jarhead nonsense. Not all soldiers are marines but all marines are
soldiers. You can come up with any 'in-group' BS you want but it ain't
going to change the facts.
You are creating more of your own definitions of common terms and
parsing than Clinton has.
Bob Fisher
wrote:
>I doubt Bob Fisher even knows a Marine much less a Marine who's unit
>proudly displays "Blessed are the Gatekeepers" as one of their logo's.
>Over the past 40 years, I've met many Embassy Marines and seriously
>doubt his description of their "barracks talk". His little story is
>more like what liberal Hollywood has tried to convince people about the
>character of Marines.
Actually I have a great affection for Marines. A few of them were
responsible from keeping me out of harm's way during a rather
"interesting" period in my life between 1967 and 1970.
I'm sorry my almost verbatim report of my recent conversation with a
Marine relative doesn't jive with your political agenda. So here's a
proposition: In a few days, I'll mail a printed copy of this thread to
this Marine and request him to e-mail you directly. If he can do so
without violating any military code, will you publish his reply on
your web site and in this alt.politics newsgroup thread subject to any
conditions of anonymity he may request? I await your answer. I
should add that I am neither a liberal nor a Hollywood screenwriter.
> If the active and reserve Marines hadn't voiced
>their reasons for voting "no" on the question, I might have given the
>source. I don't want these men and women getting in trouble for venting
>about their CIC.
I'm sorry, Jack, this doesn't make sense. For one thing, it is
virtually impossible to prevent access to any site that you post on
the Web. Most password protection options available to the typical
Internet user are easily bypassed with a few minutes of relatively
unsophisticated hacking. So why on earth have you encouraged Marines
to violate military codes of behavior and thus put their careers in
jeopardy? Maybe these Marines are retired? over 40 years of age? If
so, you might consider that the report I posted may represent the
feelings of active Marines (I believe many in that unit are in their
late teens and early 20s), and that you are letting a generation gap
affect your judgement of my honesty.
>Also, I don't want some of the radical idiots that
>post to these political newsgroups trying to spoil the poll.
>Jack L
Well, that's one motive I can't fault. But why did you announce
the existence of your web site in the first place if you are being so
protective of the Marines who posted responses on your site?
If you are trying to prove a political point with such a poll, I can
only repost my original observation:
"if you only reveal the location of a poll to those who share your
political views, how could you NOT get results that support your views
100%?"
B.F.
Don Ocean
that Military personal have to adhere to the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military
Justice). Now Marines are real tight with the UCMJ. Your Embassy Marine may
exist, but from your description not in the real world. I suggest you don't post
his name or station. If a senior in his command ever came across an
opinion(voiced) such as you have relayed, Your friend might end up with a not
so nice a duty assignment. In fact you might remind him to serve with Honor, as
it is evident his commander-in-chief didn't. I personally find it very hard to
believe a Marine would offer such an opinion.
Don Ocean
Bob Fisher wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 05:17:10 -0600, Don Ocean <oc...@ideasign.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Did you say an Embassy Marine? Now that is a nice piece of fiction!! I sure
> >wish I had your imagination. Wag the Marine....
> >Don Ocean
>
> Not fiction at all. In fact, I'm printing out this thread and mailing
> it to him. I'm sure he'll be delighted to find that his existence is
> in question.
> BF
>
> >Bob Fisher wrote:
> >
> >> On 10 Jan 1999 15:54:30 GMT, John LaBrecque <JI...@worldnet.att.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> a>couple of weeks ago, in a Christmas call to a relative who is an
> >> reminiscent of the McCarthy witch hunts of the '50s. Besides, if you
> >> only reveal the location of a poll to those who share your political
> >> views, how could you NOT get results that support your views 100%?
> >> BF
> >
Don Ocean
John LaBrecque wrote:
> Don Ocean wrote:
> >
> > Did you say an Embassy Marine? Now that is a nice piece of fiction!! I sure
> > wish I had your imagination. Wag the Marine....
> > Don Ocean
> >
>
> I doubt Bob Fisher even knows a Marine much less a Marine who's unit
> proudly displays "Blessed are the Gatekeepers" as one of their logo's.
> Over the past 40 years, I've met many Embassy Marines and seriously
> doubt his description of their "barracks talk". His little story is
> more like what liberal Hollywood has tried to convince people about the
> character of Marines. If the active and reserve Marines hadn't voiced
> their reasons for voting "no" on the question, I might have given the
> source. I don't want these men and women getting in trouble for venting
> about their CIC. Also, I don't want some of the radical idiots that
> post to these political newsgroups trying to spoil the poll.
>
John LaBrecque
on in military units everywhere. That type of talk can be chalked up to
youth and feather strutting. It may not be right but is a fact of
life. Also, it's the type of talk that makes radio talk show jocks like
Don Imus popular. But, it's for effect and not necessarily what people
really believe.
I'm also in doubt of Bob Fisher's statement that this was "barracks
talk" from Embassy Marines. The job requires the Corps to screen out
youthful Marines that are more likely to conduct themselves in that
manner. The ones that survive the screening process are not the types
that would act in that manner and would not brag about it. They are
showcase Marines that have to represent not only the Marine Corps but
the United States of America.
The poll that I mentioned is not on my WEB site. Also, I did not ask
the question of Marines that only think as I do but of any Marine.
Marines that have responded have been Democrats, Republicans, W.W.II
Vets, Korean War Vets, Vietnam War Vets and current active and reserve
Marines. Interesting that the same question asked at a local American
Legion post (which is an even mix of Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air
Force Vets) had very similar results.
John LaBrecque
Bob Fisher
wrote:
>Apparently you did not read the first post very well. The gentleman informed you
>that Military personal have to adhere to the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military
>Justice). Now Marines are real tight with the UCMJ. Your Embassy Marine may
>exist, but from your description not in the real world. I suggest you don't post
>his name or station. If a senior in his command ever came across an
>opinion(voiced) such as you have relayed, Your friend might end up with a not
>so nice a duty assignment. In fact you might remind him to serve with Honor, as
>it is evident his commander-in-chief didn't. I personally find it very hard to
>believe a Marine would offer such an opinion.
>Don Ocean
No, Don, I read very well. - and I understand what I read.
If you could discard your partisan blinders for a few minutes,
try comparing what I've written to what the original poster
wrote. While you're at it, compare our actions. The original
poster has erected a web site and claims to have invited members
of the U.S. Marines to publicly vote and post their opinions
of their Commander In Chief. He is thus encouraging violations
of military conduct codes. Not content with that, he has publicly
announced the existence of that web site on a newsgroup and goes on
to actually advertise that these violations have taken place.
(I will assume that he may not realize that no web site is anonymous
and that despite his stated wish to conceal its URL, it can be
discovered and accessed by anyone who really wants to find it.)
I, on the other hand, have merely related a telephone conversation I
had with an anonymous Marine.
What do you conclude from that comparison? Who is actually putting
Marines in harm's way?
Now let's take a look at your first post. Don, you didn't even know
that Marine units exist who guard U.S. embassies. You put your
foot in your mouth and demonstrated your ignorance in your rush to
impugn my honesty.
As to your most recent post, Don: What is especially ludicrous is
your implication that any Marine would need a reminder to
"serve with honor". The rest of your rubbish I've already dealt with.
Go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh now.
B.F.
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 05:17:10 -0600, Don Ocean <oc...@ideasign.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Did you say an Embassy Marine? Now that is a nice piece of fiction!! I sure
>> >wish I had your imagination. Wag the Marine....
>> >Don Ocean
>> Not fiction at all. In fact, I'm printing out this thread and mailing
>> it to him. I'm sure he'll be delighted to find that his existence is
>> in question.
>> BF
>> >Bob Fisher wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A couple of weeks ago, in a Christmas call to a relative who is an
Bob Fisher
wrote:
>I don't believe Mr Fisher has ever heard the term " Not On My Watch"!!
Don, I stood watches in combat zones for over 3 years. Why do I get
a gut feeling that the closest you've come to action has been posting
on newsgroups? Want to keep on putting your foot in your mouth?
B.F.
John LaBrecque
http://www.embassymarine.org/
http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/msg/msg.htm
Bob Fisher
On 12 Jan 1999 12:17:44 GMT, John LaBrecque <JI...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>I realize that "barracks talk", of the type Bob Fisher described, goes
>on in military units everywhere. That type of talk can be chalked up to
>youth and feather strutting. It may not be right but is a fact of
>life. Also, it's the type of talk that makes radio talk show jocks like
>Don Imus popular. But, it's for effect and not necessarily what people
>really believe.
I see. If Marines don't agree with their CIC's detractors, it's "youth
and feather-strutting" and just "for effect". An interesting theory.
>I'm also in doubt of Bob Fisher's statement that this was "barracks
>talk" from Embassy Marines. The job requires the Corps to screen out
>youthful Marines that are more likely to conduct themselves in that
>manner. The ones that survive the screening process are not the types
>that would act in that manner and would not brag about it. They are
>showcase Marines that have to represent not only the Marine Corps but
>the United States of America.
Re-read my post. There was no bragging involved whatsoever.
There is indeed a rigorous selection process for Embassy duty, but why
do I get a feeling that you wish it was designed to screen out all
Marines except those who would make derogatory comments about
President Clinton?
>The poll that I mentioned is not on my WEB site.
OK, Jack, here's how your original post started:
"With all this talk about Presidential approval polls, I decided to
start a poll of Marines, Reserve Marines, Retired Marines and former
Marines. The question I asked was..."
A bit of confusion here, Jack. Did someone loan you a web site
to start your poll? Is this poll on a newsgroup? Is it someone
else's poll? Never mind. I don't even care any more.
>Also, I did not ask
>the question of Marines that only think as I do but of any Marine.
>Marines that have responded have been Democrats, Republicans, W.W.II
>Vets, Korean War Vets, Vietnam War Vets and current active and reserve
>Marines.
And who let them know about your poll, Jack? Did they just stumble
across it? Once again, I repeat:
"If you only reveal the location of a poll to those who share your
political views, how could you NOT get results that support your views
100%?"
>Interesting that the same question asked at a local American
>Legion post (which is an even mix of Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air
>Force Vets) had very similar results.
>Jack L
Sorry, Jack. You're too blatantly and boringly partisan.
Your only response seems to be to try to trash anyone who disagrees
with you and to impugn the honesty of those who report viewpoints
that are at odds with yours. Good-bye.
B.F.
Greg Bradt
>
> With all this talk about Presidential approval polls, I decided to start
> a poll of Marines, Reserve Marines, Retired Marines and former Marines.
>
> Is he (Clinton) the person you want as your Commander in Chief?
>
> The responses in the first hour the question was up were:
>
> NO = 100%
> YES = 0%
Margin of error, plus or minus 100%.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: He is a hypocrite.
: He is a welcher.
Every word that comes from mark edward appears to be fueled by a quart of
cheap wine, a pint of rotgut whiskey or both.
--
Buddy K
"Oh, you are talking about the 22nd ammendment, asked for and signed by
Harry Truman. That was with a democrat majority in Congress, however,
southern democrats did side with republicans on a number of issues."
--mark edward, again showing he makes it up as he goes (the president does
not sign Constitutional amendments) to the laughter of all on usenet.
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Sorry, Jack. You're too blatantly and boringly partisan.
: Your only response seems to be to try to trash anyone who disagrees
: with you and to impugn the honesty of those who report viewpoints
: that are at odds with yours. Good-bye.
: B.F.
That is mostly what Jack does - when he's not whining to the high heavens
about how awful those people are that he doesn't agree with. His motto:
John LaBrecque
find anyone that I trashed that didn't do a personal, offensive attack
on me first. They seem to get relly upset about what I may say. I
wonder if the truth hurts?
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: I think that both of these electronic paper tigers would find it hard to
: find anyone that I trashed that didn't do a personal, offensive attack
: on me first.
What he actually means is that anybody who disagrees with him is doing a
personal, offensive attack on him.
: They seem to get relly upset about what I may say.
They mostly laugh and try to encourage you to keep posting your whine
list.
: I
: wonder if the truth hurts?
You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the butt.
Mark Edward Balcom
>
> You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the butt.
>
This from buddy k the proven liar and pervertor of facts?
Every word that comes from buddy k is either a lie, an insult, or both.
He is a welcher.
Don Ocean
Bob Fisher wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:45:34 -0600, Don Ocean <oc...@ideasign.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> No, Don, I read very well. - and I understand what I read.
> If you could discard your partisan blinders for a few minutes,
If I were partison, I wouldn't bother with this exchange of words, ideas etc. But
tjen again the pot has been know to call the kettle black.. (that is a Euphenism, not
a racial slur).
>
> try comparing what I've written to what the original poster
> wrote. While you're at it, compare our actions. The original
> poster has erected a web site and claims to have invited members
> of the U.S. Marines to publicly vote and post their opinions
> of their Commander In Chief. He is thus encouraging violations
> of military conduct codes. Not content with that, he has publicly
> announced the existence of that web site on a newsgroup and goes on
> to actually advertise that these violations have taken place.
> (I will assume that he may not realize that no web site is anonymous
> and that despite his stated wish to conceal its URL, it can be
> discovered and accessed by anyone who really wants to find it.)
My first opinion about you misreading posts is obviously correct. The Gentleman
stated his poll was of retired etc military pesonel.
>
>
> I, on the other hand, have merely related a telephone conversation I
> had with an anonymous Marine.
>
> What do you conclude from that comparison? Who is actually putting
> Marines in harm's way?
>
> Now let's take a look at your first post. Don, you didn't even know
> that Marine units exist who guard U.S. embassies. You put your
> foot in your mouth and demonstrated your ignorance in your rush to
> impugn my honesty.
Golly I guess I spent too much time running around embassies guarded by the few, the
select to even notice they were Marines. Gee I wonder what I was??
>
>
> As to your most recent post, Don: What is especially ludicrous is
> your implication that any Marine would need a reminder to
> "serve with honor". The rest of your rubbish I've already dealt with.
> Go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh now.
> B.F.
>
Don Ocean
Bob Fisher wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:50:10 -0600, Don Ocean <oc...@ideasign.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't believe Mr Fisher has ever heard the term " Not On My Watch"!!
>
> Don, I stood watches in combat zones for over 3 years. Why do I get
> a gut feeling that the closest you've come to action has been posting
> on newsgroups? Want to keep on putting your foot in your mouth?
> B.F.
I won't one-upsmanship with you. Only 3 years, huh? Which side? Now when
you give me a return shot, would you start another subject? I think we have
just about worn this one out and besides that others have been lurking are
beginning to get bored.
Don Ocean