To Don
The Older Gentleman
Not.
<Pause>
<Activate Don Mode>
"You said all Canadians are fucktards....!"
Do you see where you're going wrong?
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER (currently Beaving) Damn, back to five bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> All everbody on reeky is a fucktard.
>
> Not a lie.
>
> <Pause>
>
> <Activate Don Mode>
>
> "You said all Canadians are fucktards....!"
>
> Do you see where you're going wrong?
I like you both but your are acting like a couple of bitches in
heat...
don (Calgary)
This bozo has pissed me off for the last time Keith. His assertion
Canada refused to send troops to Europe until 44 diminishes and
demeans the Canadian Troops including my Father who served over there
long before 44. Further the word refused places a misleading
connotation on the very complicated question of conscription in
Canada.
He owes all of those people a sincere apology.
S'mee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or as we say down here "Prove it".
I got no dog in this fight...just tired of it. You guys have been
sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
don (Calgary)
I am not sure who you are suggesting should prove what. I think I have
amply substantiated Canada had _Troops_ overseas long before 1944. The
statement we didn't is offensive.
>
>I got no dog in this fight...just tired of it. You guys have been
>sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
Well don't read it Keith. I manage to avoid your sniping with Krusty
and still read the rest of your messages.
Bob Mann
a2ce8c...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> I got no dog in this fight...just tired of it. You guys have been
> sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
>
It's really fucking tiresome how two otherwise intelligent people can act
like such morons.
Picking one word and taking offence to it out of the context in which it
was intended is something my vindictive mother would do.
No matter how many attemps at explanation are made the original imagined
slight is maintained or even magnified.
Of course, when every attempt at explanation is accompanied by insults such
as imbecile, etc. it's no wonder.
Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
--
Bob Mann
Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.
Bob Mann
news:3e7bf5hloj6jp39g2...@4ax.com:
> I am not sure who you are suggesting should prove what. I think I have
> amply substantiated Canada had _Troops_ overseas long before 1944. The
> statement we didn't is offensive.
>
Have you considered the possibility that grammatical diferences
betweenBritish English and Canadian English as to the positioning of the
word "only" may have caused some level of misunderstanding?
It helps if you don't ascribe malice to every perceived slight when it
might be equally attributable to error, ignorance or just plain language
differences.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:7111f4b5-6806-4205-9a5e-
> a2ce8c718...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I got no dog in this fight...just tired of it. You guys have been
> > sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
>
> It's really fucking tiresome how two otherwise intelligent people can act
> like such morons.
>
> Picking one word and taking offence to it out of the context in which it
> was intended is something my vindictive mother would do.
>
> No matter how many attemps at explanation are made the original imagined
> slight is maintained or even magnified.
>
> Of course, when every attempt at explanation is accompanied by insults such
> as imbecile, etc. it's no wonder.
>
> Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
> bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
Megadittos. Sorry if it pisses you off, Don, but I like TOG and
mostly like his posts. Sorry if it pisses you off TOG, but I like
Don, and mostly like his posts.
It's EASY for me to see BOTH of your points of view in this latest
tiff. I UNDERSTAND both TOG's response to Don's homage, AND Don's
taking offense at that response.
But as Steven and Bob have pointed out, it's gone too far. Neither of
you guys is communicating with the other at all, and hurling insults
does nothing for either of you.
If you are hearing anything from OUTSIDE your closed insult loop with
one another, you'll perhaps consider agreeing to disagree, and move
on.
Or not. Of course. There's always the honorable reeky course of
action.
turby
Sheesh. Is the show ending already? I was just going to pass the
popcorn.
Leszek Karlik
[...]
> Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
> bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
Two old gimmers in trading insults and unwilling to see the other's point
shocker.
News @ 11.
I predict this kind of thing is the future of Usenet, at least until the
last nursing home usenet server connected dies along with its admin. ;-)
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
NTV 650
Leszek Karlik
[...]
> Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
> bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
Two old gimmers in trading insults and unwilling to see the other's point
shocker. News @ 11.
I predict this kind of thing is the future of Usenet, at least until the
last nursing home usenet server dies along with its admin. ;-)
don (Calgary)
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:24:27 GMT, Bob Mann <bob...@mtsremove.net>
wrote:
>"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in
>news:3e7bf5hloj6jp39g2...@4ax.com:
>
>> I am not sure who you are suggesting should prove what. I think I have
>> amply substantiated Canada had _Troops_ overseas long before 1944. The
>> statement we didn't is offensive.
>>
>
>Have you considered the possibility that grammatical diferences
>betweenBritish English and Canadian English as to the positioning of the
>word "only" may have caused some level of misunderstanding?
What part of "refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years"
in the following quote can be attributed to grammatical differences?
I would also note he has stated several times since that Canada did
not send troops to Europe prior to 44.
>I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
>WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
>that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
>represented only by volunteers.
The definition of troops is pretty precise.
As for the positioning of "only' we are talking about a man who
consistently derides others in this group for their poor command and
use of the English language. Further he sets himself up as the
standard for proper use. Given his self proclaimed status as an
linguistic expert, I can only surmise he meant exactly what he wrote,
subtle connotation of "only" and "refused" included.
>
>It helps if you don't ascribe malice to every perceived slight when it
>might be equally attributable to error, ignorance or just plain language
>differences.
To date he continues to claim Canada did not send troops overseas
until 1944. Clearly he does not want to admit the statement as an
error. Has he somehow deluded himself into thinking the young men and
women who volunteered to serve in our armed forces and go overseas to
help defend Britain, were not troops and somehow if the were drafted
they would be. I have to ask myself if that is possible and the answer
is no.
Once error and language differences are eliminated all that is left is
ignorance or malice. You pick. I could accept either.
As indicated by his following statement I think ignorance in Canadian
history as it relates to troop deployment and the politics behind the
conscription question during the two world wars is a given.
>[1] But Prime Minister Mackenzie King was a Hitler appeaser[2], so
>perhaps it isn't so strange[3].
The final salvation of a weak intellect is reducing a complex issue
down to an urban myth and then professing it as Gospel.
Given all of the misleading and incorrect statements in that one
message and factoring in he has set himself up as language expert and
an expert on most topics, reaching the conclusion he meant exactly
what he wrote and it was delivered as a back handed slam against
Canada and our veterans, is a reasonable and logical conclusion.
Mark Olson
>> Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
>> bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
> Megadittos. Sorry if it pisses you off, Don, but I like TOG and
> mostly like his posts. Sorry if it pisses you off TOG, but I like
> Don, and mostly like his posts.
Ditto squared to *all* that.
I've met Don IRL and feel I am somewhat acquainted with TOG by
virtue of hanging out in UKRM for quite a few years. I look
forward to meeting him IRL as well. Just because I haven't
spoken up before this doesn't mean I haven't noticed that neither
of them has covered themselves in glory by a long shot.
don (Calgary)
Tim, I like you and Bob. We may not always agree but I respect your
opinions, including on this topic.
Unfortunately TOG has crossed a boundary, one that is very important
to me. Along with insulting tens of thousands of Canadian troops who
served overseas he has insulted my father, and that is going one giant
step too far. His steadfast refusal to acknowledge Canada deployed
troops prior to 1944 indicates to me the deception was deliberate and
delivered with malice.
You might note I have not retaliated with criticism of Britain or
their actions during WWII. The opportunity is there, anyone who
recalls their high school history knows that, but I would have to
cross the very same boundary TOG has, and it is not in my character to
do so.
A sincere and heartfelt apology is in order. Until I hear it, he will
remain on my shit list.
Absent of the above noted apology, if you see me replying to one of
his posts, move on. I can assure you I will not be extending my hand
in friendship.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>"S'mee" <steven...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:7111f4b5-6806-4205-9a5e-
>a2ce8c...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I got no dog in this fight...just tired of it. You guys have been
>> sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
>>
>
>It's really fucking tiresome how two otherwise intelligent people can act
>like such morons.
>
>Picking one word and taking offence to it out of the context in which it
>was intended is something my vindictive mother would do.
I have noted the many mistakes and misleading information contained in
his message. Narrowing all of the issues I have raised down to one
word is something my kids used to do.
>
>No matter how many attemps at explanation are made the original imagined
>slight is maintained or even magnified.
So do you believe Canada refused to deploy troops prior to 1944?
TOG hasn't tried to explain that, but continues to maintain that is
the case. Your parents were probably in Britain during the war. My
father, my mother and my uncles volunteered to join the Canadian Armed
Forces and were deployed overseas in the early 40's. They helped
comprise the Canadian troops joining in the war effort. To claim they
were anything less, or Canada refused to send them is insulting.
>
>Of course, when every attempt at explanation is accompanied by insults such
>as imbecile, etc. it's no wonder.
>
>Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
>bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
You are entitled to your opinion. As I mentioned in another message
TOG crossed a boundary this time, a boundary I consider important and
without trying to slight you, it is more important to me than your
opinion.
The Older Gentleman
> This bozo has pissed me off for the last time Keith. His assertion
> Canada refused to send troops
No I didn't.
> to Europe until 44 diminishes and
> demeans the Canadian Troops including my Father who served over there
> long before 44. Further the word refused places a misleading
> connotation on the very complicated question of conscription in
> Canada.
The Canadian government refused. End. Of.
The Older Gentleman
> in the following quote can be attributed to grammatical differences?
> I would also note he has stated several times since that Canada did
> not send troops to Europe prior to 44.
No, I haven't. I've stated 'conscripted' troops, clearly and accurately.
The Older Gentleman
Oh, true.
But I'm not the one doing the selective snipping...
The Older Gentleman
> So do you believe Canada refused to deploy troops prior to 1944?
>
> TOG hasn't tried to explain that,
Yes he has. Frequently.
The Older Gentleman
> His steadfast refusal to acknowledge Canada deployed
> troops prior to 1944 indicates to me the deception was deliberate and
> delivered with malice.
For the umpteenth time, this is not what I said. And you know it. And
two separate posters have also pointed out your fundamental error. Only
it's not an error - it's deliberate aggression.
Here: you're going to need this.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> in the following quote can be attributed to grammatical differences?
>> I would also note he has stated several times since that Canada did
>> not send troops to Europe prior to 44.
>
>No, I haven't. I've stated 'conscripted' troops, clearly and accurately.
Bullshit! You are lying through your teeth. You stated you found it
odd Canada refused to send troops until five years after we declared
war.
What a friggin goofball.
The Older Gentleman
I can only repeat what I've just put in another posting.
Yes, I did. And guess what? In the next sentence I said: "Until
that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
represented only by volunteers."
Why is this so hard to understand?
And I also said:
"Canada had introduced conscription years before, but MK refused to send
troops abroad. That really is a blot on his record, although given his
domestic political situation, understandable.
So Canada sent volunteers - well, they couldn't very well stop them
going. And they were formidable, as I've mentioned."
Why have you not mentioned this? Ashamed?
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> His steadfast refusal to acknowledge Canada deployed
>> troops prior to 1944 indicates to me the deception was deliberate and
>> delivered with malice.
>
>For the umpteenth time, this is not what I said. And you know it. And
>two separate posters have also pointed out your fundamental error. Only
>it's not an error - it's deliberate aggression.
OK tell me what part of this you didn't write?
>I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
>WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
>that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
>represented only by volunteers.
Hmmm, "Canada having declared war on Germany in WW2, refused to send
troops for nearly five years"
Now for the umpteenth time that is what you wrote, not in error and
was blatantly incorrect and misleading.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> This bozo has pissed me off for the last time Keith. His assertion
>> Canada refused to send troops
>
>No I didn't.
I can keep pasting your quote directly under your denials. Eventually
you are going to have to admit you made the statement. lol
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:53:03 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> His steadfast refusal to acknowledge Canada deployed
> >> troops prior to 1944 indicates to me the deception was deliberate and
> >> delivered with malice.
>
> >For the umpteenth time, this is not what I said. And you know it. And
> >two separate posters have also pointed out your fundamental error. Only
> >it's not an error - it's deliberate aggression.
>
> OK tell me what part of this you didn't write?
>
> >I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
> >WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
> >that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
> >represented only by volunteers.
>
> Hmmm, "Canada having declared war on Germany in WW2, refused to send
> troops for nearly five years"
>
> Now for the umpteenth time that is what you wrote, not in error and
> was blatantly incorrect and misleading.
Don, when I read that, I IMMEDIATELY assumed that TOG meant "refused
to send [conscripted] troops to Europe for nearly five years"
SPECIFICALLY because of the DIRECTLY following annotation of "Until
that time ... Canada was represented only by volunteers."
Now, I don't know if that representation was by virtue of Canadian
volunteers serving with units of other country's armed forces, or if
Canada sent units comprised wholly of Canadian volunteers, but the
paragraph in NO WAY intimated to me that TOG EVER thought that Canada
didn't deploy troops prior to 1944, let alone that there was any
deception or malice intended in what he wrote.
Why would he have written "Canada was represented only by
volunteers.... Which was probably for the best, as it meant we got
first pick, as it were. The Canadians ... made a contribution out of
all proportion to their numbers. And took a fearful hammering at
Dieppe." if he were trying to be deceptive and malicious?
And TOG, of course, could EASILY have simply responded "I SHOULD have
written 'refused to send conscripted troops to Europe for nearly five
years,' in the first place, and having failed to do that, I can see
why my comments might have been interpreted differently than I
intended," but being TOG - lovable as he is - he is incapable of
admitting even such a pubic hair's breadth of potential error on his
own part, as we all know.
Both of you are being even worse than me, which is really the most
contemptible reeky insult that I can hurl.
And, yes, I fully understand the concept of "not being able to let it
go!"
;-) Tim
BTW, I still like both of you irascible old fools!
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> Two old gimmers in trading insults and unwilling to see the other's point
> shocker.
> News @ 11.
>
> I predict this kind of thing is the future of Usenet, at least until the
> last nursing home usenet server connected dies along with its admin. ;-)
LOL. It would be even funnier if it weren't so goddamn likely to be
proven 100% true!
The Older Gentleman
> And TOG, of course, could EASILY have simply responded "I SHOULD have
> written 'refused to send conscripted troops to Europe for nearly five
> years,' in the first place, and having failed to do that, I can see
> why my comments might have been interpreted differently than I
> intended," but being TOG - lovable as he is - he is incapable of
> admitting even such a pubic hair's breadth of potential error on his
> own part, as we all know.
Ahem:
"Well, no, not really. Canada had introduced conscription years before,
but MK refused to send troops abroad. That really is a blot on his
record, although given his domestic political situation, understandable.
So Canada sent volunteers - well, they couldn't very well stop them
going. And they were formidable, as I've mentioned."
Posted 21 hours ago.
Now, I can see that my comments might be interpreted differently, but
Don is the only one who has done so, and the only one who continues to
blank out my laudatory postings.
If I'm in error, I fess up. Easiest and quickest. Ask Twibil - it was
only a week or so ago. And it irritated the hell out of him ;-)
So, I'm sorry if Don has interpreted them wrongly, but God alone knows
he's been given enough evidence to show that.
The Older Gentleman
Ah, more selective snipping.
The paragraph you quote above is true, accurate, and I stand by it. The
Canadian Government refused to send troops. End. Of.
don (Calgary)
Well considering he has yet to admit Canada sent troops to Europe
until after 44, I can't agree with you here Tim. His most recent posts
are a continuation of his assertion they were glad to get volunteers
since it allowed them to get first pick, implying there was some kind
of screening process, by England in place prior to Canadian volunteers
joining the effort.
Well nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>Now, I don't know if that representation was by virtue of Canadian
>volunteers serving with units of other country's armed forces, or if
>Canada sent units comprised wholly of Canadian volunteers, but the
>paragraph in NO WAY intimated to me that TOG EVER thought that Canada
>didn't deploy troops prior to 1944, let alone that there was any
>deception or malice intended in what he wrote.
Now if you are correct, and remember he continues to refuse to admit
Canada deployed troops prior to 44, that would make some sense. But he
has never conceded we deployed troops overseas prior to 44 and seems
to want to leave the impression 50,000 Canadians transported
themselves to England to be selected for duty by England. It's
condescending, demeaning and a blatant lie. You admit in the above
paragraph you don't know how Canada deployed our troops. The very
assertion our troops applied to England to serve in the war effort
demeans our country and those that proudly served Canada.
TOG's continued lying on the topic furthers the confusion and
perpetrates his bullshit.
>
>Why would he have written "Canada was represented only by
>volunteers.... Which was probably for the best, as it meant we got
>first pick, as it were. The Canadians ... made a contribution out of
>all proportion to their numbers. And took a fearful hammering at
>Dieppe." if he were trying to be deceptive and malicious?
Tim, the statement is blatantly false. It is a lie. Yes we had a
volunteer army then as we do now, but to even think England had some
kind of first pick of our troops is ridiculous. It is a bold faced and
blatant lie. My dad and other Canadians, conscripts or volunteers,
fought for Canada, for our flag to defend Britain and liberate Europe.
To even think for a minute some pompous ass in England wants others to
think there was some kind of English selection process is offensive.
Quite frankly I am having a hard time thinking you, even for a second
considered Canadian Troops in WW2 were part of a foreign country's
armed forces. Geez that is scary.
>
>And TOG, of course, could EASILY have simply responded "I SHOULD have
>written 'refused to send conscripted troops to Europe for nearly five
>years,' in the first place, and having failed to do that, I can see
>why my comments might have been interpreted differently than I
>intended," but being TOG - lovable as he is - he is incapable of
>admitting even such a pubic hair's breadth of potential error on his
>own part, as we all know.
He is too critical of others use of the language to cut him a lot of
slack with his sloppy writing. Personally I think he wrote exactly
what he meant.
>
>Both of you are being even worse than me, which is really the most
>contemptible reeky insult that I can hurl.
>
>And, yes, I fully understand the concept of "not being able to let it
>go!"
>
>;-) Tim
>
>BTW, I still like both of you irascible old fools!
Which is as it should be. I look forward to the next time our paths
cross.
Shantideva Upasaka
> He owes all of those people a sincere apology.
Actually, TOG wants *you* to humbly apologize to *him*, and he
sincerely wishes that you would threaten him some more so he could
complain to his
ukrm buddies about how people are "stalking" him.
BrianNZ
'Yep'
The Older Gentleman
> Well considering he has yet to admit Canada sent troops to Europe
> until after 44
I refer you to the original posting.
>, I can't agree with you here Tim. His most recent posts
> are a continuation of his assertion they were glad to get volunteers
> since it allowed them to get first pick, implying there was some kind
> of screening process,
Now, that's the way *yopu* see it.
You aren't very good at this, are you, sweetie?
Bruce Richmond
> a2ce8c718...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
>
> It's really fucking tiresome how two otherwise intelligent people can act
> like such morons.
>
> Picking one word and taking offence to it out of the context in which it
> was intended is something my vindictive mother would do.
Shouldn't his be saved for Mother's Day? ;-)
> No matter how many attemps at explanation are made the original imagined
> slight is maintained or even magnified.
>
> Of course, when every attempt at explanation is accompanied by insults such
> as imbecile, etc. it's no wonder.
>
> Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
> bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
>
> --
> Bob Mann
>
> Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.
The Older Gentleman
> Picking one word and taking offence to it out of the context in which it
> was intended is something my vindictive mother would do.
Oh dear. Indeed.
>
> No matter how many attemps at explanation are made the original imagined
> slight is maintained or even magnified.
>
> Of course, when every attempt at explanation is accompanied by insults such
> as imbecile, etc. it's no wonder.
Good point.
>
> Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
> bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
I can live with it. Don has now elevated this to a personal attack on
his father, so I guess he can't.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
'Yep' just doesn't cut it around here. If you can't say Gidday
then....
Oh, excuse me. Never mind ;)
The Older Gentleman
> Yep' just doesn't cut it around here. If you can't say Gidday
> then....
>
> Oh, excuse me. Never mind ;)
You are forgiven, my son.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:41:57 -0800 (PST), "tomor...@erols.com"
I didn't get that meaning at all from what he wrote. I took it to
mean "we got first pick, as it were" to mean that because the
Canadians fighting were volunteers and not conscripts, they were the
cream of the crop, the best, the most valorous, the most highly
dedicated, the ones who felt most strongly that Nazism had to be
rolled back. The fact that he followed that up with "The
Canadians ... made a contribution out of all proportion to their
numbers" can't be interpreted as ANYTHING but a compliment to Canadian
volunteers.
> >Why would he have written "Canada was represented only by
> >volunteers.... Which was probably for the best, as it meant we got
> >first pick, as it were. The Canadians ... made a contribution out of
> >all proportion to their numbers. And took a fearful hammering at
> >Dieppe." if he were trying to be deceptive and malicious?
>
> Tim, the statement is blatantly false. It is a lie. Yes we had a
> volunteer army then as we do now, but to even think England had some
> kind of first pick of our troops is ridiculous.
I certainly didn't get any sense that he meant that "England got first
pick of Canadian troops."
> It is a bold faced and
> blatant lie. My dad and other Canadians, conscripts or volunteers,
> fought for Canada, for our flag to defend Britain and liberate Europe.
> To even think for a minute some pompous ass in England wants others to
> think there was some kind of English selection process is offensive.
"English selction process?????" I didn't get that impression, and
have not gottten that impression from anything thast TOG has written
since, either. Until you wrote that, I would never even have dreamt
of divining that idea from what TOG wrote.,
> Quite frankly I am having a hard time thinking you, even for a second
> considered Canadian Troops in WW2 were part of a foreign country's
> armed forces. Geez that is scary.
Why? Why on earth would that be "scary"? I told you I didn't know.
Have you ever heard of the Flying Tigers? I probably think as highly
of American military troops as you do of Canadian, but if my hazy
memory of WWII history from high school isn't completely wrong,
American volunteer pilots went to China and flew combat missions
against Japan before Pearl Harbor, before the U.S. officially joined
the war in the South Pacific, before there was American Air Force
action against the Japanese. I think it was General Chennault?
Hold on, hang, on, let me Google this. Yep. Mostly right. So, is
the fact that those American volunteers were not fighting for an
American unit, but were "civilians" assisting the free Chinese resist
Japanese Imperial aggression "scary?" Not to me.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Gentleman) wrote:
> tomor...@erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And TOG, of course, could EASILY have simply responded "I SHOULD have
> > written 'refused to send conscripted troops to Europe for nearly five
> > years,' in the first place, and having failed to do that, I can see
> > why my comments might have been interpreted differently than I
> > intended," but being TOG - lovable as he is - he is incapable of
> > admitting even such a pubic hair's breadth of potential error on his
> > own part, as we all know.
> So, I'm sorry if Don has interpreted them wrongly, but God alone knows
> he's been given enough evidence to show that.
You aren't very good at this, are you, sweetie?
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Jealous, of course, that no one (not even Steven) can be bothered to
"stalk" you. You poor, deluded, tired, old freak show.
S'mee
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:00:25 -0800 (PST), "S'mee"
>
>
>
>
>
> <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 7, 8:01 am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:23:29 -0800 (PST), "S'mee"
>
> >> <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 7, 2:00 am, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
> >> >Gentleman) wrote:
> >> >> All everbody on reeky is a fucktard.
>
> >> >> Not a lie.
>
> >> >> <Pause>
>
> >> >> <Activate Don Mode>
>
> >> >> "You said all Canadians are fucktards....!"
>
> >> >> Do you see where you're going wrong?
>
> >> >I like you both but your are acting like a couple of bitches in
> >> >heat...
>
> >> This bozo has pissed me off for the last time Keith. His assertion
> >> demeans the Canadian Troops including my Father who served over there
> >> long before 44. Further the word refused places a misleading
> >> connotation on the very complicated question of conscription in
> >> Canada.
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> I am not sure who you are suggesting should prove what. I think I have
> amply substantiated Canada had _Troops_ overseas long before 1944. The
> statement we didn't is offensive.
Ah, I think I see the disconect for everybody. My question then is
"Was Canada sending conscripts along with volunteers prior to 1944" I
am embarassed to ask because I SHOULD know the answer but do not. I'm
trusting YOUR memory over mine or my poor google skillz. Is that
better way of saying it then?
> >I got no dog in this fight...just tired of it. You guys have been
> >sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
>
> Well don't read it Keith. I manage to avoid your sniping with Krusty
> and still read the rest of your messages.
OWW!! Stop picking on me! 8^) It's fair cop, but my alibi is that I
figure you guys are two of the better informed, even handed and all
around good guys here. Nobody like to see the good guys fight each
other. Unless of course both are female, nubile, barely dressed and
knee deep in jello.
Oh and I snipe at krusty in hopes the fucker will stroke out.
S'mee
Wrong thread dingleberry...sheesh some peoples children.
> Oh, excuse me. Never mind ;)
Don't think you'll get over that easy bub....
S'mee
> On Nov 7, 9:28 am, "tomor...@erols.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:21 pm, Bob Mann <bobm...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>
> > > "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:7111f4b5-6806-4205-9a5e-
> > > a2ce8c718...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
>
> > > like such morons.
>
> > > was intended is something my vindictive mother would do.
>
> > > slight is maintained or even magnified.
>
> > > Of course, when every attempt at explanation is accompanied by insults such
> > > as imbecile, etc. it's no wonder.
>
> > > bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
>
> > mostly like his posts. Sorry if it pisses you off TOG, but I like
> > Don, and mostly like his posts.
>
> > tiff. I UNDERSTAND both TOG's response to Don's homage, AND Don's
> > taking offense at that response.
>
> > But as Steven and Bob have pointed out, it's gone too far. Neither of
> > you guys is communicating with the other at all, and hurling insults
> > does nothing for either of you.
>
> > If you are hearing anything from OUTSIDE your closed insult loop with
> > one another, you'll perhaps consider agreeing to disagree, and move
> > on.
>
> > Or not. Of course. There's always the honorable reeky course of
> > action.
>
> Sheesh. Is the show ending already? I was just going to pass the
> popcorn.
No thanks, have bucket of wings and a 6pack of some Leinenkugel
Amber...I'm better than good, I'm stuffed and getting pickled. 8^)
BBBBRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!
Pardon me.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> Mark Olson <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote:
> > tomor...@erols.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 12:21 pm, Bob Mann <bobm...@mtsremove.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Trust me guys, no matter how hard you try, neither of you is looking too
> > >> bright right now. The harder you try, the worse you each look.
>
> > > Megadittos. Sorry if it pisses you off, Don, but I like TOG and
> > > mostly like his posts. Sorry if it pisses you off TOG, but I like
> > > Don, and mostly like his posts.
>
> > Ditto squared to *all* that.
>
> > I've met Don IRL and feel I am somewhat acquainted with TOG by
> > virtue of hanging out in UKRM for quite a few years. I look
> > forward to meeting him IRL as well. Just because I haven't
> > spoken up before this doesn't mean I haven't noticed that neither
> > of them has covered themselves in glory by a long shot.
>
> Oh, true.
>
> But I'm not the one doing the selective snipping...
>
LOL...oh yeah? only thing showing in that post was YOUR comment and
that is assuredly slective snipping. I'd offer you some Newcastle but
I finished that last night.
S'mee
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:53:03 +0000, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
> >don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> His steadfast refusal to acknowledge Canada deployed
> >> troops prior to 1944 indicates to me the deception was deliberate and
> >> delivered with malice.
>
> >For the umpteenth time, this is not what I said. And you know it. And
> >two separate posters have also pointed out your fundamental error. Only
> >it's not an error - it's deliberate aggression.
>
> OK tell me what part of this you didn't write?
>
> >I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
> >WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
> >that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
> >represented only by volunteers.
>
> Hmmm, "Canada having declared war on Germany in WW2, refused to send
> troops for nearly five years"
>
> Now for the umpteenth time that is what you wrote, not in error and
> was blatantly incorrect and misleading.
>
>
Huh, hes SAID and I qoute from YOUR post.
"Until that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada
was represented only by volunteers."
were's the disconect in my reading of that last line? He didn't say
there were NO conscripts just that he wasn't google that part. I'm
confused and I read this thread from the begning...
S'mee
When usenet dies I'm selling my computers...disconnecting the Lima
Lima and no you wont be able to get ahold of the mobile I don't have
and don't NEED one. When Lima Lima is gone then unless you MAIL an
actual LETTER you'll never hear a thing. Something I'm sure would make
everybody here happy.
don (Calgary)
No that's a fair question. The short answer is no. In fact we only
sent around 15000 conscripts overseas throughout the entire war. TOG
seems to connect troops with conscripts. He also seems to think enlist
is synonymous with conscript. The dictionary does not support him on
either, nor does my common sense.
The long answer is we passed a bill authorizing conscription in 1940.
It was a very contentious issue that divided our country down language
lines. The 1940 Bill specifically excluded sending conscripts
overseas. In July of 41 the Bill was modified to allow for sending
conscripts overseas when necessary. Once France was occupied there was
little reason to augment our forces with more soldiers, conscripts or
volunteers. Once we began suffering horrendous losses, like at
Normandy we needed to supplement our troops on the ground. But as I
noted only 15000 conscripts were sent over.
I would note, because there appears to be some confusion over our pre
1944 overseas troops. They were volunteers and the vast majority of
them freely enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces. You could find some
exceptions. Many of our citizens, especially in the 40s would have
been of British heritage, some having dual citizenship. I am sure many
of them would have found their way home to fight for their country.
Thousands, tens of thousands of them enlisted in the Canadian Forces
to defend their homeland.
I hope that sheds a little light on it for you.
>> >I got no dog in this fight...just tired of it. You guys have been
>> >sniping at each other for weeks. 8^\
>>
>> Well don't read it Keith. I manage to avoid your sniping with Krusty
>> and still read the rest of your messages.
>
>OWW!! Stop picking on me! 8^) It's fair cop, but my alibi is that I
>figure you guys are two of the better informed, even handed and all
>around good guys here. Nobody like to see the good guys fight each
>other. Unless of course both are female, nubile, barely dressed and
>knee deep in jello.
>
>Oh and I snipe at krusty in hopes the fucker will stroke out.
I do not feel that much different about TOG these days.
don (Calgary)
I never disagreed with him on this one.
>
I'd like to think Canadians that joined the effort, volunteers or
conscripts all fought valiantly. That said the first to join the
forces were probably the most enthusiastic. I am not sure that makes
them a better soldier. That still doesn't explain his statement he
found it odd Canada refused send troops prior to 44. If he recognized
volunteers were there, why preface it with Canada refused to send
troops.
He did post today that the Canadians that served overseas prior to 44
were mostly not enlisted. I am butchering that quote and am too lazy
to go back and grab it word for word. That quote combined with his
steadfast assertion Canada refused to send troops prior to 44 supports
the possibility he does believe Canadians en mass transported
themselves across the ocean to join up with British forces. It is not
true, but it does explain a lot of the strange things he has said in
this discussion.
>> >Why would he have written "Canada was represented only by
>> >volunteers.... Which was probably for the best, as it meant we got
>> >first pick, as it were. The Canadians ... made a contribution out of
>> >all proportion to their numbers. And took a fearful hammering at
>> >Dieppe." �if he were trying to be deceptive and malicious?
>>
>> Tim, the statement is blatantly false. It is a lie. Yes we had a
>> volunteer army then as we do now, but to even think England had some
>> kind of first pick of our troops is ridiculous.
>
>I certainly didn't get any sense that he meant that "England got first
>pick of Canadian troops."
Who is "we" then? Or was that just more sloppy writing?
>
>> It is a bold faced and
>> blatant lie. My dad and other Canadians, conscripts or volunteers,
>> fought for Canada, for our flag to defend Britain and liberate Europe.
>> To even think for a minute some pompous ass in England wants others to
>> think there was some kind of English selection process is offensive.
>
>"English selction process?????" I didn't get that impression, and
>have not gottten that impression from anything thast TOG has written
>since, either. Until you wrote that, I would never even have dreamt
>of divining that idea from what TOG wrote.,
>
>> Quite frankly I am having a hard time thinking you, even for a second
>> considered Canadian Troops in WW2 were part of a foreign country's
>> armed forces. Geez that is scary.
>
>Why? Why on earth would that be "scary"? I told you I didn't know.
>Have you ever heard of the Flying Tigers? I probably think as highly
>of American military troops as you do of Canadian, but if my hazy
>memory of WWII history from high school isn't completely wrong,
>American volunteer pilots went to China and flew combat missions
>against Japan before Pearl Harbor, before the U.S. officially joined
>the war in the South Pacific, before there was American Air Force
>action against the Japanese. I think it was General Chennault?
>Hold on, hang, on, let me Google this. Yep. Mostly right. So, is
>the fact that those American volunteers were not fighting for an
>American unit, but were "civilians" assisting the free Chinese resist
>Japanese Imperial aggression "scary?" Not to me.
Scary that you might believe Canadian Troops in WW2 were members of a
foreign force.not that Canadians would serve on a foreign force.
Canadians have often served in foreign forces. That is not that
unusual. Many Canadians joined the US forces and went to Viet Nam.
Doug Payne
rules, I'll comment once more. I'm pretty much siding with Don here,
with maybe a little less vitriol.
TOG, in my opinion, you are very adept at playing clever word games,
using ambiguity that you can then return to later, in an effort to back
yourself out of the corner. You display the arrogance of the never
wrong. Most of the time, your word games are meaningless, weak efforts
at humour. Sometimes, as in this case, they strike a nerve. Sometimes
you should probably just show a little more respect for people for whom
some topics are important, and either choose your words more carefully,
with no ambiguity, or just shut the fuck up.
Don, brother, he ain't worth it. Let it go man.
don (Calgary)
The problem is it is inconsistent with the first part where he also
states "I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on
Germany in WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five
years" We declared war in 39 so he is saying we refused to send troops
until 44.
We sent troops during that period, a few hundred thousand of them. Yes
they enlisted in our Armed Forces without being conscripted, but they
were still troops.
He made two separate and contradictory statements in the same
paragraph, although he later seemed to claim you had to be a conscript
before you could form a troop. I am not sure how that works.
I am beginning to believe he thinks that the Canadian volunteers
somehow joined the British Armed Forces, not Canada's. He did say this
afternoon Canadians overseas prior to 44 were mostly not enlisted in
the Canadian Armed Forces. Then he backed up and claimed enlisted
meant conscripted. Troops, conscript, enlist all mean the same thing.
I just can't buy that.
The Older Gentleman
> I would note, because there appears to be some confusion over our pre
> 1944 overseas troops. They were volunteers
No confusion *at all*. This is what I said right at the start.
Here endeth.
The Older Gentleman
> > But I'm not the one doing the selective snipping...
> >
>
>
> LOL...oh yeah? only thing showing in that post was YOUR comment and
> that is assuredly slective snipping. I'd offer you some Newcastle but
> I finished that last night.
If you get any more....
As long as it's full strength and not the weak stuff brewed for some
export markets.
The Older Gentleman
> I didn't get that meaning at all from what he wrote. I took it to
> mean "we got first pick, as it were" to mean that because the
> Canadians fighting were volunteers and not conscripts, they were the
> cream of the crop, the best, the most valorous, the most highly
> dedicated, the ones who felt most strongly that Nazism had to be
> rolled back. The fact that he followed that up with "The
> Canadians ... made a contribution out of all proportion to their
> numbers" can't be interpreted as ANYTHING but a compliment to Canadian
> volunteers.
Score six (I think).
My main job is agro-industrial journalism. "First pick" is a very
commonly used phrase to denote just what you've described: the first,
the best fruit, or whatever. I use it all the time, and it seemed very
appropriate to use here.
Of course, if you actually *want* to, er, "pick" a fight, you can say it
means anything. Something to do with noses, even. Or miners' tools.
The Older Gentleman
Not quite. I'm just good at using words, period.
However, in this instance, it's like using them against someon"e with
Asperger's because once they have a thing set in their head (He said
this! Waillll!") it's damned hard to make them reject it.
So, I'll knock this on the head with Don.
Oh, and one last thing, sweetheart: have you ever heard anything on
reeky as pathetic as a repeated threat to get on a plane and 'sort
someone out'?
The Older Gentleman
Good enough. It's not like I'm playing against the first team.
The Older Gentleman
<snip>
How do you know things are getting worse?
A: When you have KrustyUS taking your side.
The Older Gentleman
> The problem is it is inconsistent with the first part where he also
> states "I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on
> Germany in WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five
> years" We declared war in 39 so he is saying we refused to send troops
> until 44.
You did, insofar as "send" means "despatched officially", ordered to go,
whatever. I also explained this in a posting which I note you ignored as
well. Volunteers are not "sent". They "go".
Now, yes, that word "send" could be interpreted as "Canada sent no
troops at all" but with the following statement about volunteers, it
obviously doesn't. It could be said that there's a conflicting
statement, in which case simply asking for clarification would do it.
As it was, I explained what I meant in subequent postings, but you've
clung to your original interprtation - and quite a few people have
disagreed with it, and your subsequent other "interpretations".
Anyway, you decided to pick a fight.
And as of this morning I'm ending it. Believe what you will. Book your
airline tickets (as if).
Shantideva Upasaka
Gentleman) wrote:
> Oh, and one last thing, sweetheart: have you ever heard anything on
> reeky as pathetic as a repeated threat to get on a plane and 'sort
> someone out'?
AAMOF, there's a swishy dude who prances around with sticks and
hankies who
annoys the group regularly.
I think he took up morris mens' dancing after becoming a "fag" for all
the older boys at boarding school...
The Older Gentleman
Like I said, you know you reach rock bottom when you have KrustyUS
trying to fight your case.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Doug Payne <dwp...@ist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>> I commented early on. At the risk of violating my own self-imposed
>> rules, I'll comment once more. I'm pretty much siding with Don here,
>> with maybe a little less vitriol.
>>
>> TOG, in my opinion, you are very adept at playing clever word games,
>> using ambiguity that you can then return to later, in an effort to back
>> yourself out of the corner. You display the arrogance of the never
>> wrong. Most of the time, your word games are meaningless, weak efforts
>> at humour. Sometimes, as in this case, they strike a nerve. Sometimes
>> you should probably just show a little more respect for people for whom
>> some topics are important, and either choose your words more carefully,
>> with no ambiguity, or just shut the fuck up.
>>
>Not quite. I'm just good at using words, period.
Actually your don't even know the meaning of the words you have been
using. See Troops, Enlist & Conscript for a few examples. I could add
to the list concepts such as a Volunteer Armed Force, but this is
already way to embarrassing for you.
S'mee
Gentleman) wrote:
> S'mee <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > But I'm not the one doing the selective snipping...
>
> > LOL...oh yeah? only thing showing in that post was YOUR comment and
> > that is assuredly slective snipping. I'd offer you some Newcastle but
> > I finished that last night.
>
> If you get any more....
>
> As long as it's full strength and not the weak stuff brewed for some
> export markets.
8^( You know how to hurt a guy...like americans can get ANYTHING
strong without brewing it here. Hell even the lambec we get seems
watered down.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>Oh, and one last thing, sweetheart: have you ever heard anything on
>reeky as pathetic as a repeated threat to get on a plane and 'sort
>someone out'?
Oh I am over that now. Yes your initial post pushed my buttons.
Congrats I am sure that was your intent. You succeeded.
I will say when I looked up your address, I was able to find #4 and #8
but the area in between the two was a vacant lot. Now it was only a
superficial search. I didn't spend any time to verify the results. So
I could be wrong, or you could have lied about your address or you
could live in a tent in a vacant lot. Hmmm I thought I saw a shopping
cart nearby. Nah, not possible.
Shantideva Upasaka
> I will say when I looked up your address, I was able to find #4 and #8
> but the area in between the two was a vacant lot. Now it was only a
> superficial search. I didn't spend any time to verify the results. So
> I could be wrong, or you could have lied about your address or you
> could live in a tent in a vacant lot. Hmmm I thought I saw a shopping
> cart nearby. Nah, not possible.
Well, TOG *is* a pikey sort, yannow.
He lives in a a small caravan that he tows behind a 1972 Vauxhall...
S'mee
> I live in a a small caravan that he tows behind a 1972 Vauxhall...
Gee such open honesty about your life. I suppose that means you
wardrive (when sober) for your net connections.
S'mee
>
> <snip>
>
> How do you know things are getting worse?
>
> A: When you have KrustyUS taking your side.
Ah then might have a glimmer of an evyl plan put in motion by me lo'
these many decades anon...I'd rather Musillini on my side than Krusty.
At least HE knew where to find booze and whores(actual female ones of
your own species) much less get the trains to run on time (in italy
no less!) (mostly)
The Older Gentleman
I'm abandoning this thread now, as I stated elsewhere. I suggest you do
the same.
The Older Gentleman
No. It just means that Don is even worse than you are at stalking.
The Older Gentleman
<snip>
I'm abandoning this thread now, as I stated elsewhere. I suggest you do
the same.
The Older Gentleman
I noticed this, years ago in the US. German-brewed Dortmunder Union, but
brewed to 3% or something horrific. Somewhere there must have been a
long-dead German brewer revolving in his grave.
Bob Mann
news:1j8ttz9.1mw8xgytg214wN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk:
> "Well, no, not really. Canada had introduced conscription years before,
> but MK refused to send troops abroad. That really is a blot on his
> record, although given his domestic political situation,
understandable.
>
> So Canada sent volunteers - well, they couldn't very well stop them
> going. And they were formidable, as I've mentioned."
>
Okay....here it is.
Canada had conscription MANY years prior to WW2
They abandoned the practice as it was no longer needed.
The volunteers were members of the Canadian Armed Forces and were indeed
sent by the government of Canada.
Canadians could have also joined the British Armed Forces and I imagine
some did.
The Canadian Army at that time consisted totally of volunteers right up
until the losses proved greater then the supply of replacements. At that
time they reinstituted conscription also allowing for generous
concientious objection.
COs were required to work in food production or similar necessary work to
replace those who went to war.
What you stated *was* misleading or incorrect since the troops sent were
regular forces even though they were volunteers. Canada just had that
many volunteers that conscription wasn't required.
MK didn't refuse to send troops abroad, he refused to send conscripts
abroad.
--
Bob Mann
Cap'n, ah need moor pow'r.
Bob Mann
> My main job is agro-industrial journalism. "First pick" is a very
> commonly used phrase to denote just what you've described: the first,
> the best fruit, or whatever. I use it all the time, and it seemed very
> appropriate to use here.
>
Here it could only mean that England got to select the best first.
First pick is something you get when choosing up sides for a game.
Bob Mann
> You did, insofar as "send" means "despatched officially", ordered to go,
> whatever. I also explained this in a posting which I note you ignored as
> well. Volunteers are not "sent". They "go".
>
Actually, once you sign up, even voluntarily, you go where you are sent
just like any other soldier.
You don't just go. Armies don't work very well that way.
Bob Mann
news:fpebf51qlnt37borf...@4ax.com:
> So do you believe Canada refused to deploy troops prior to 1944?
No, I agree with you on the facts but I prefer to believe that the main
difference of opinion is down to language. I admit it looked like he said
what you think he said but taking the rest of it into consideration as
well as following explanations it seems more likely that it was wording
more than intent.
>
> TOG hasn't tried to explain that, but continues to maintain that is
> the case. Your parents were probably in Britain during the war. My
> father, my mother and my uncles volunteered to join the Canadian Armed
> Forces and were deployed overseas in the early 40's. They helped
> comprise the Canadian troops joining in the war effort. To claim they
> were anything less, or Canada refused to send them is insulting.
>
My father joined the Royal Navy at 17. (1943)
My mother worked in a munitions factory and, as such, was as much or more
of a target than my father.
My mother's cousin was imprisoned in Burma.
My father's brother and father were exempt as they were train drivers
which also made them targets.
My mother told me stories of standing on the beach in Dorset as a child
wathing the dogfights during the battle of Britain.
I also knew many men who served in the Canadian forces.
I think TOG is wrong with what he says as far as tropps being sent.
Canada had a rich supply of volunteers as did Britain.
My father volunteered so that he could joint the Navy instead of waiting
to be conscripted into the Army. The Navy only took volunteers.
The notion that volunteers are not "sent" is laughable and nobody would
disagree with you on that but the pair of you seem more intent on
insulting each other than with the actual facts at this point.
Yes, I know that you are arguing the facts but you are doing it in such a
way as to make it damn near impossible for anyone to back down and admit
they may have made an error.
Likewise, every supposed olive brach from TOG has thorns attached.
As long as you both continue to argue by attacking the person instead of
the words neither of you is going to win.
When you mud wrestle with a pig you both get dirty and the pig likes it.
That applies to both of you here.
Like Tim said, I like both of you but.......
Bob Mann
5407e4...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Bob Mann
> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I would note, because there appears to be some confusion over our pre
>> 1944 overseas troops. They were volunteers
>
> No confusion *at all*. This is what I said right at the start.
>
> Here endeth.
>
>
The problem lieth in that you said Canada did not send troops.
They didn't send conscripts but the volunteers were troops.
Enlisted men and officers and also troops.
They were also most definitely sent even if it was voluntarily.
I know that the English usage of the word troops is no different than the
Canadian usage so you were in error.
Admit that pont and let's move on.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in
>news:fpebf51qlnt37borf...@4ax.com:
>
>> So do you believe Canada refused to deploy troops prior to 1944?
>
>No, I agree with you on the facts but I prefer to believe that the main
>difference of opinion is down to language. I admit it looked like he said
>what you think he said but taking the rest of it into consideration as
>well as following explanations it seems more likely that it was wording
>more than intent.
>
Up until yesterday, even considering the pride he takes in his use of
the english language and how he derides other for their linguistic
failings, I might have been able to accept he screwed up the wording.
But when he posted his assertion Canadian troops who volunteered were
mostly not enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces his intent became
very clear. He honestly believes the government of Canada did not send
troops prior to 44. In a later post he even tried to make a
distinction between the formal government and the spirit of Canada or
some other such nonsense.
I don't think there is any doubt he meant exactly what he wrote and he
believes the Canadian Armed Forces did not send troops prior to 44 and
Canada was represented by a volunteer force that somehow functioned
outside of our government or the military service.
>>
>> TOG hasn't tried to explain that, but continues to maintain that is
>> the case. Your parents were probably in Britain during the war. My
>> father, my mother and my uncles volunteered to join the Canadian Armed
>> Forces and were deployed overseas in the early 40's. They helped
>> comprise the Canadian troops joining in the war effort. To claim they
>> were anything less, or Canada refused to send them is insulting.
>>
>
>My father joined the Royal Navy at 17. (1943)
>My mother worked in a munitions factory and, as such, was as much or more
>of a target than my father.
>My mother's cousin was imprisoned in Burma.
>My father's brother and father were exempt as they were train drivers
>which also made them targets.
>My mother told me stories of standing on the beach in Dorset as a child
>wathing the dogfights during the battle of Britain.
I have heard similar stories from my family. I am sure you are very
proud of them as you should be. I for one am thankful for their
sacrifices and their service.
>
>I also knew many men who served in the Canadian forces.
>I think TOG is wrong with what he says as far as tropps being sent.
>Canada had a rich supply of volunteers as did Britain.
>My father volunteered so that he could joint the Navy instead of waiting
>to be conscripted into the Army. The Navy only took volunteers.
>
>The notion that volunteers are not "sent" is laughable and nobody would
>disagree with you on that but the pair of you seem more intent on
>insulting each other than with the actual facts at this point.
>Yes, I know that you are arguing the facts but you are doing it in such a
>way as to make it damn near impossible for anyone to back down and admit
>they may have made an error.
Quite frankly he insulted me and Canadians with his laughable
statement. I am not overly concerned with allowing him to back out
gracefully. I am through with the mane calling but short of TOG
providing a sincere apology to all of the Canadian Armed Forces who
served overseas, I will not soon forget this exchange.
>Likewise, every supposed olive brach from TOG has thorns attached.
>As long as you both continue to argue by attacking the person instead of
>the words neither of you is going to win.
I am now focusing on the facts Bob. I was upset earlier and said
things I shouldn't have. I regret that and will apologize to this
group and TOG for the personal attacks, but if the discussion
continues, I will not back off on the factual arguments, nor will I
stop pointing out the weaknesses in TOG's position.
>
>When you mud wrestle with a pig you both get dirty and the pig likes it.
>That applies to both of you here.
>
>Like Tim said, I like both of you but.......
I will be the first to defend my country and our veterans from
disrespectful, misleading and deceitful statements regardless of who
makes them, any day, anytime. That will never change. If you have a
problem with that, there's not much I can do.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Projecting your lifestyle on others. Again.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Gentleman) wrote:
> S'mee <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 2:09 am, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
> > Gentleman) wrote:
> > > S'mee <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > But I'm not the one doing the selective snipping...
>
> > > > LOL...oh yeah? only thing showing in that post was YOUR comment and
> > > > that is assuredly slective snipping. I'd offer you some Newcastle but
> > > > I finished that last night.
>
> > > If you get any more....
>
> > > As long as it's full strength and not the weak stuff brewed for some
> > > export markets.
>
> > 8^( You know how to hurt a guy...like americans can get ANYTHING
> > strong without brewing it here. Hell even the lambec we get seems
> > watered down.
>
> I noticed this, years ago in the US. German-brewed Dortmunder Union, but
> brewed to 3% or something horrific. Somewhere there must have been a
> long-dead German brewer revolving in his grave.
Try again, now. Not everything remains the same forever. (Outside of
reeky, of course.)
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> > The problem is it is inconsistent with the first part where he also
> > states "I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on
> > Germany in WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five
> > years" We declared war in 39 so he is saying we refused to send troops
> > until 44.
>
> You did, insofar as "send" means "despatched officially", ordered to go,
> whatever. I also explained this in a posting which I note you ignored as
> well. Volunteers are not "sent". They "go".
Not true at all. Once you volunteer for the armed services, you are
in the service. You go where they send you. You will be both
"despatched officially" and "ordered to go." Volunteers go BECAUSE
they are sent.
J. Clarke
Depends on what kind of volunteering they're doing. The Lafayette
Escadrille and the American Volunteer Group are two examples where people
volunteered and went rather than joining the army and waiting to be sent.
Bob Mann
> I will be the first to defend my country and our veterans from
> disrespectful, misleading and deceitful statements regardless of who
> makes them, any day, anytime. That will never change. If you have a
> problem with that, there's not much I can do.
>
As will I.
I guess I'm just a little more tactful.
At least in the beginning.
Like I said, I prefer to start from a position of assuming no ill will was
intended.
I skipped a lot of this partly because you two have been sniping at each
other for a while even before this (and I think that may have contributed
to your short fuse) and partly because the whole newsgroup is beginning to
get boring. Same old same old etc.
These days I generally just scan and leave without comment.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in
Pretty much the same with me. I find I can keep up with most threads
just by reading the messages from people I know. I'll follow the
threads if I get involved, but beyond that it is a quick scan.
Henry
> Doug Payne <dwp...@ist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> I commented early on. At the risk of violating my own self-imposed
>> rules, I'll comment once more. I'm pretty much siding with Don here,
>> with maybe a little less vitriol.
>>
>> TOG, in my opinion, you are very adept at playing clever word games,
>> using ambiguity that you can then return to later, in an effort to back
>> yourself out of the corner. You display the arrogance of the never
>> wrong. Most of the time, your word games are meaningless, weak efforts
>> at humour. Sometimes, as in this case, they strike a nerve. Sometimes
>> you should probably just show a little more respect for people for whom
>> some topics are important, and either choose your words more carefully,
>> with no ambiguity, or just shut the fuck up.
Yep, that's our resident clown in action - a rather comical blend of
simplemindedness and arrogance. If only the clown was half as
intelligent as it "thinks" it is...
> Not quite. I'm just good at using words, period.
Agreed, but not so much at thinking clearly or displaying the
intelligence and integrity to admit it when you fuck up.
> Oh, and one last thing, sweetheart: have you ever heard anything on
> reeky as pathetic as a repeated threat to get on a plane and 'sort
> someone out'?
Repeatedly lying about what someone does for a living while hiding
and cowering behind a killfile quickly comes to mind. ;-) But I suppose
that's considerably easier for a lying, self deprecating clown than
defending its moronic lies and rants....
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>> The problem is it is inconsistent with the first part where he also
>> states "I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on
>> Germany in WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five
>> years" We declared war in 39 so he is saying we refused to send troops
>> until 44.
> You did, insofar as "send" means "despatched officially", ordered to go,
> whatever. I also explained this in a posting which I note you ignored as
> well. Volunteers are not "sent". They "go".
So, in clown speak, the United States hasn't sent any troops to
Iraq or Afghanistan. Amusing, to say the very least...
Henry
> How do you know things are getting worse?
When you've been reduced to spewing moronic lies while hiding
behind your killfile? ;-)
BrianNZ
Change the record henry..........
The Older Gentleman
> Change the record henry..........
Oh, wow.
Amazing the way they crawl out of the gutter. First KrustyUS and then
Drain Man :-))
Henry
> Change the record henry..........
Nah, I still enjoy watching the clown's spastic "dancing" to this
one. Watch, I bet it'll poke its head out of its killfile just
long enough spew some silly, self deprecating drivel about janitors
or drains... ;-)
S'mee
> The Older Clown tinmdily chirped:
>
> > How do you know things are getting worse?
>
> When you've been reduced to spewing moronic lies while hiding
> behind your killfile? ;-)
Unlike you he did speak the truth as he understood it. You OTOA are
just a sociopathic nut job.