Edwards Ex-Mistress, The Tawdry Tart, Rules Out Paternity Test
D. Spencer Hines
Watson, the plot thickens and the game's afoot...
And if Ohio had just gone the other way and Kerry and Edwards had won in
2004, this pogue Edwards, the Breck Girl, would be the sitting Vice
President of the United States.
POOR Judgment on his part...
And WHY couldn't he find a better-looking woman to sleep with, instead of
this tawdry tart?
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
----------------------------------------------------------
Edwards ex-mistress rules out paternity test
Aug 9, 6:58 PM (ET)
WASHINGTON (AP) - The ex-mistress of former presidential candidate John
Edwards says she will not participate in DNA testing to establish the
paternity of her daughter.
Rielle Hunter's lawyer, Robert Gordon, says his client is a private
individual who wishes to maintain the privacy of herself and her daughter.
In a statement, Gordon says that Hunter is ruling out any kind of testing
that could establish who the daughter's father is.
On Friday, Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair with Hunter in
2006 but denied that he was the father of Hunter's five-month-old daughter.
Edwards said he will take a paternity test to prove he is not the father.
D. Spencer Hines
Watson, the plot thickens and the game's afoot...
And if Ohio had just gone the other way and Kerry and Edwards had won in
2004, this pogue Edwards, the Breck Girl, would be the sitting Vice
President of the United States.
POOR Judgment on his part...
And WHY couldn't he find a better-looking woman to sleep with, instead of
this tawdry tart?
Perhaps there is a Third Man -- in addition to Edwards and Andrew Young...
Ergo, NO Paternity Test desired...
Why we may even find ourselves watching them all crawling through the Vienna
sewers before this is all over.
Then there is that Edwards-Hunter trip to Africa, providing more salacious
details.
The folks at the National Enquirer, who were ignored by the Mainstream
Left-Wing Press, say there is lots more -- including financial scandals and
perhaps even criminal charges before this is all over.
Barack Hussein Obama was also considering this Pogue Edwards for HIS Vice
Presidential Running Mate -- or for ATTORNEY GENERAL of these United States.
Incredible!
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rXunk.702$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
> Hilarious!
>
> Watson, the plot thickens and the game's afoot...
>
> And if Ohio had just gone the other way and Kerry and Edwards had won in
> 2004, this pogue Edwards, the Breck Girl, would be the sitting Vice
> President of the United States.
You would prefer Larry Craig?
J A
Civilian volunteers are needed and this is an opportunity for our nation's
fervent interventionists to fight the forces of dictatorship,
anti-democracy, and the anti-jebus...
William Black
"J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
news:opSdnYXhRZ3NmwLV...@earthlink.com...
Will someone be selling tickets?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Raymond O'Hara
"Soldier in a Combat Zone" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b4456b7-5847-4edf...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
x-no-archive:yes
Let the progressive-liberals go... It is their turn to serve anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm kerry went to vietnam chimy and deferment dick stayed home, so whose
turn is it?
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Pay-per view, a lucky viewer will be caught in a small Georgian
village and alternatively machine gunned, run over by a tank and
strafed from the air by a large helicopter.
William Black
"Soldier in a Combat Zone" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b4456b7-5847-4edf...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
x-no-archive:yes
On Aug 10, 12:16 pm, "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote:
Let the progressive-liberals go... It is their turn to serve anyway.
----------------------
Well, they were the lot that went under that name in the thread title last
time...
J A
"Soldier in a Combat Zone" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b4456b7-5847-4edf...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
x-no-archive:yes
On Aug 10, 12:16 pm, "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote:
>
Let the progressive-liberals go... It is their turn to serve anyway.
<
Well they can join too, but our nation's fervent neocon interventionists
should be eager to lead the way, to fight the forces of dictatorship,
anti-democracy, and the anti-jebus...?
By the way, what where are you stationed? Outift? CO? Exec?
USA all the way!!
J A
x-no-archive:yes
On Aug 10, 12:09 pm, "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote:
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
> messagenews:rXunk.702$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
>
> > Hilarious!
>
> > Watson, the plot thickens and the game's afoot...
>
> > And if Ohio had just gone the other way and Kerry and Edwards had won in
> > 2004, this pogue Edwards, the Breck Girl, would be the sitting Vice
> > President of the United States.
>
> You would prefer Larry Craig?
>
I thought that Larry Craig had switched parties. He does fit in
better with dems. And the dems always cover up their mistakes. Look
at how folks are shielding Edwards.
<
No, he fit right in with the Republicans, right alongside the guy who was
trying to break into a boys dorm, and Duke Cunnigham, and the guy with the
$250,000,000 bridge to nowhere so he get free house remodeling.
>
While fun to watch another arrogant rich boy democrat get in trouble,
<
Well, Edwards, and Clinton's wife, and all the Washington cockgobblers
should just disappear...however, Edwards came from a working class
background. It's Bush who was born with money.
By the way, where are you stationed? What outfit?
USA all the way!!
it just does not matter. The dems are the party that makes being a
loser ok. Just give up your rights and they will take care of you.
tankfixer
says...
>
> By the way, what where are you stationed? Outift? CO? Exec?
Oh look a ponce who wants to stiffle free speach.
How very Progressive of you
--
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.
tankfixer
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.2308dd046...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> In article <DcmdnQiZw61nqALV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>>
>> By the way, what where are you stationed? Outift? CO? Exec?
>
> Oh look a ponce who wants to stiffle free speach.
Look, a punk who's a phony.
Nobody who's a real soldier wants anyone trading on the status.
You're the ponce, punk.
And if he's a real troop, why would he be afraid to state his unit and back
it up by showing he knows the officers running it?
> How very Progressive of you
You're a ponce.
dapra
> Hilarious!
>
> Watson, the plot thickens and the game's afoot...
>
No plot... just American, puritan hypocrisy. The rest of humanity has
figured out long time ago that powerful males tend to 'service' more
than one females. Americans are shocked! Hypocrisy on the n-th degree.
torresD
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:rXunk.702$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
>
> Watson, the plot thickens and the game's afoot...
>
> And if Ohio had just gone the other way and Kerry and Edwards had won in
> 2004, this pogue Edwards, the Breck Girl, would be the sitting Vice
> President of the United States.
>
> POOR Judgment on his part...
High Profile Adulterers - add to the growing list
1. Bill Clinton
2. JFK,
3. RFK
4. Dan Burton
5. Henry Hyde
6. McCain
7. Mark Foley
8. Schwarzenegger
9. Rudolph Giuliani
10. Eliot Spitzer
11. Larry Craig
12. Eisenhower
13. Lyndon Johnson
14. Franklin Roosevelt
15. Tom Delay
16. David Vitter
17. USA General Ralston - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
18. McGreevy
tankfixer
says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2308dd046...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <DcmdnQiZw61nqALV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> By the way, what where are you stationed? Outift? CO? Exec?
> >
>
> > Oh look a ponce who wants to stiffle free speach.
>
> Look, a punk who's a phony.
A phoney ?
You projecting again little boi ?
>
> Nobody who's a real soldier wants anyone trading on the status.
>
> You're the ponce, punk.
>
> And if he's a real troop, why would he be afraid to state his unit and back
> it up by showing he knows the officers running it?
Because you little progressives like to call and try and get people in
trouble for boxing your ears here.
You don't have a problem giving out who you work for and all do you ?
>
> > How very Progressive of you
>
> You're a ponce.
Typical progressive, don't you have a protest to try and organize ?
!Jones
Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>POOR Judgment on his part...
So... *you* would have kicked her out of bed?
I'm not applauding, mind you... I'm just generally keeping my yap shut
on other people's ethical choices and hoping my own are not brought
into the national spotlight.
Jones
Dan
The actions alternatively by Georgian and Russian forces...
Dan
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <R_GdnRKc4f9J3wLV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2308dd046...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <DcmdnQiZw61nqALV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> By the way, what where are you stationed? Outift? CO? Exec?
>> >
>>
>> > Oh look a ponce who wants to stiffle free speach.
>>
>> Look, a punk who's a phony.
>
> A phoney ?
> You projecting again little boi ?
No punk, I have you right.
>> Nobody who's a real soldier wants anyone trading on the status.
>>
>> You're the ponce, punk.
>>
>> And if he's a real troop, why would he be afraid to state his unit and
>> back
>> it up by showing he knows the officers running it?
>
> Because you little progressives like to call and try and get people in
> trouble for boxing your ears here.
You couldn't box anybody's ears in here, punk.
> You don't have a problem giving out who you work for and all do you ?
Look phony, he's claiming to be a soldier serving in a combat zone, so why
why he be afraid of telling the world what unit he's in?
Anybody with an ounce of character doesn't like people who claim false
credentials, or wear medals they didn;t earn, or claim to be combat soldiers
when they aren't.
By the way, ponce, he's posted through a cable provider in Lousiana. ponce.
How do your little boxed ears feel, tankponce?
>> > How very Progressive of you
>>
>> You're a ponce.
>
> Typical progressive, don't you have a protest to try and organize ?
You don't mind phony's claiming they're posting from a combat zone - we all
know who the ponce is.
J A
back, said was claiming to have served in Iraq, but would not say what unit
he was in when challenged on it?
Is that you? Does anybody know if that pertains to this person?
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.230910ced...@nntp.earthlink.net...
Dennis
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 06:22:34 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "D. Spencer
Hines" wrote:
>
>>POOR Judgment on his part...
>
> So... *you* would have kicked her out of bed?
I've got a next-door neighbor who looks a whole lot better. But hey,
maybe she *can* suck the chrome off a trailer hitch, who knows? She
better be able to.
...excuse me. I forgot you were talking to DSH, not me. :-)
> I'm not applauding, mind you... I'm just generally keeping my yap shut
> on other people's ethical choices and hoping my own are not brought
> into the national spotlight.
A good philosophy. No accounting for taste or lack thereof, either.
Dennis
tankfixer
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.230910ced...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <R_GdnRKc4f9J3wLV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.2308dd046...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <DcmdnQiZw61nqALV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> By the way, what where are you stationed? Outift? CO? Exec?
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Oh look a ponce who wants to stiffle free speach.
> >>
> >> Look, a punk who's a phony.
> >
> > A phoney ?
>
> > You projecting again little boi ?
>
> No punk, I have you right.
Like I figured, you are just another progressive fascist trying to
stiffle any contrary opinion.
>
>
> >> Nobody who's a real soldier wants anyone trading on the status.
> >>
> >> You're the ponce, punk.
> >>
> >> And if he's a real troop, why would he be afraid to state his unit and
> >> back
> >> it up by showing he knows the officers running it?
> >
>
> > Because you little progressives like to call and try and get people in
> > trouble for boxing your ears here.
>
> You couldn't box anybody's ears in here, punk.
Seem you are on the ropes.
>
>
> > You don't have a problem giving out who you work for and all do you ?
>
> Look phony, he's claiming to be a soldier serving in a combat zone, so why
> why he be afraid of telling the world what unit he's in?
You like to sling around phony, it must be a new word for you.
As for if he is or is not serving in a combat zone you would know he
won't be giving out the unit for operationa security reasons.
>
> Anybody with an ounce of character doesn't like people who claim false
> credentials, or wear medals they didn;t earn, or claim to be combat soldiers
> when they aren't.
So why don't you stop making false claims ?
>
> By the way, ponce, he's posted through a cable provider in Lousiana. ponce.
One centered in or around Leesville LA ?
Not suprising he might have USENET account there.
You think he would be using a .mil to post to usenet ?
>
> How do your little boxed ears feel, tankponce?
>
>
>
> >> > How very Progressive of you
> >>
> >> You're a ponce.
> >
> > Typical progressive, don't you have a protest to try and organize ?
>
> You don't mind phony's claiming they're posting from a combat zone - we all
> know who the ponce is.
I could care less, his ideas are usually half wacked.
What I object to is a progressive like you who attempts to silence
anyone who won't toe the party line.
--
tankfixer
says...
> Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who one of the female posters, sometime
> back, said was claiming to have served in Iraq, but would not say what unit
> he was in when challenged on it?
No, you are confused, again.
No soldier is going to give you his unit, deployed or otherwise.
>
> Is that you? Does anybody know if that pertains to this person?
Getting desperate to try and drop a dime on somebody ?
J A
"Dennis" <tsalag...@asus.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AF6D960BBEEAts...@130.133.1.4...
> !Jones wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 06:22:34 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "D. Spencer
> Hines" wrote:
>>
>>>POOR Judgment on his part...
>>
>> So... *you* would have kicked her out of bed?
>
> I've got a next-door neighbor who looks a whole lot better. But hey,
> maybe she *can* suck the chrome off a trailer hitch, who knows? She
> better be able to.
LOL.
They paid her over $100k (in donated campaign funds) to make campaign
videos, even though she had never done any of that kind of work before.
I wonder why? If he had got the nomination, they'd have to have a
convention fight to get rid of him and start all over again, which would
have meant *Hilary*.
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <a7KdndODD6KK4gLV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.230910ced...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <R_GdnRKc4f9J3wLV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.2308dd046...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> >> > In article <DcmdnQiZw61nqALV...@earthlink.com>,
>> >> > a...@re.com
>> >> > says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By the way, what where are you stationed? Outift? CO? Exec?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> > Oh look a ponce who wants to stiffle free speach.
>> >>
>> >> Look, a punk who's a phony.
>> >
>> > A phoney ?
>>
>> > You projecting again little boi ?
>>
>> No punk, I have you right.
>
> Like I figured, you are just another progressive fascist trying to
> stiffle any contrary opinion.
Not at all.
He said he's a soldier in a combat zone.
I asked him his unit and some info to back that up.
You think that's stiffling? I doubt anyone else does, but I can understadn
your sensitivity...
>> >> >> Nobody who's a real soldier wants anyone trading on the status.
>> >>
>> >> You're the ponce, punk.
>> >>
>> >> And if he's a real troop, why would he be afraid to state his unit and
>> >> back
>> >> it up by showing he knows the officers running it?
>> >
>>
>> > Because you little progressives like to call and try and get people in
>> > trouble for boxing your ears here.
>>
>> You couldn't box anybody's ears in here, punk.
>
> Seem you are on the ropes.
Uh huh. ;-))
>
>>
>>
>> > You don't have a problem giving out who you work for and all do you ?
>>
>> Look phony, he's claiming to be a soldier serving in a combat zone, so
>> why
>> why he be afraid of telling the world what unit he's in?
>
> You like to sling around phony, it must be a new word for you.
> As for if he is or is not serving in a combat zone you would know he
> won't be giving out the unit for operationa security reasons.
Hahahahahaha.
A regular soldier in the zone can't give his unit designation.
No battalion, company, becasue of "spies". Like it would matter to the
ragheads.
You're saying mail coming out of a theater can't have the sender's name,
rank, and unit ....
How does it get returned if undeliverble?
You're obviuosly coming up very lame here, and I'm wondering why..
Anybody reading this get mail form Iraq or Afghanistan?
>> Anybody with an ounce of character doesn't like people who claim false
>> credentials, or wear medals they didn;t earn, or claim to be combat
>> soldiers
>> when they aren't.
>
> So why don't you stop making false claims ?
Oh, I think people reading this can sort out who is making false claims.....
>> By the way, ponce, he's posted through a cable provider in Lousiana.
>> ponce.
>
> One centered in or around Leesville LA ?
> Not suprising he might have USENET account there.
>
> You think he would be using a .mil to post to usenet ?
I don't know, but its coming through a cable TV account. Maybe he can inform
us, if it isn't "secret".
>
>>
>> How do your little boxed ears feel, tankponce?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > How very Progressive of you
>> >>
>> >> You're a ponce.
>> >
>> > Typical progressive, don't you have a protest to try and organize ?
>>
>> You don't mind phony's claiming they're posting from a combat zone - we
>> all
>> know who the ponce is.
>
> I could care less, his ideas are usually half wacked.
> What I object to is a progressive like you who attempts to silence
> anyone who won't toe the party line.
Come on. ;-))
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <R7udnYkxWYAjHALV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>> Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who one of the female posters, sometime
>> back, said was claiming to have served in Iraq, but would not say what
>> unit
>> he was in when challenged on it?
>
> No, you are confused, again.
> No soldier is going to give you his unit, deployed or otherwise.
>
>>
>> Is that you? Does anybody know if that pertains to this person?
>
> Getting desperate to try and drop a dime on somebody ?
I honestly don't want to say anything against somebody who might actually
have served over there, but this secrecy claim regarding routine military
units, simply isn't ringing true.
Troops over there in interviews commonly mention units, and vehicles
commonly have unit designations, etc.
This isn't ww2 - it doesn't do some raghead jihadi much good to know unit
designations.
tankfixer
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> > In article <R7udnYkxWYAjHALV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> > says...
> >> Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who one of the female posters, sometime
> >> back, said was claiming to have served in Iraq, but would not say what
> >> unit
> >> he was in when challenged on it?
> >
> > No, you are confused, again.
> > No soldier is going to give you his unit, deployed or otherwise.
> >
> >>
> >> Is that you? Does anybody know if that pertains to this person?
> >
> > Getting desperate to try and drop a dime on somebody ?
>
> I honestly don't want to say anything against somebody who might actually
> have served over there, but this secrecy claim regarding routine military
> units, simply isn't ringing true.
When you have progressives running around in usenet making calls to
peoples commanders are you suprised he won't give out his unit ?
For that matter would anyone give who they work for at all ?
Would you ?
Think about it from that perspective.
> Troops over there in interviews commonly mention units, and vehicles
> commonly have unit designations, etc.
You understand when they give a units name it has been cleared ?
>
> This isn't ww2 - it doesn't do some raghead jihadi much good to know unit
> designations.
It wouldn't suprise me if they have the equivilent somewhere of an S2
section trying to put an OOB together.
There are trained military folks on th eother side you know.
tankfixer
It is when unit commanders have been called based on information given
out here.
Do you give out your bosses name and the company you work for ?
>
>
> >> >> >> Nobody who's a real soldier wants anyone trading on the status.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're the ponce, punk.
> >> >>
> >> >> And if he's a real troop, why would he be afraid to state his unit and
> >> >> back
> >> >> it up by showing he knows the officers running it?
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Because you little progressives like to call and try and get people in
> >> > trouble for boxing your ears here.
> >>
>
> >> You couldn't box anybody's ears in here, punk.
> >
> > Seem you are on the ropes.
>
> Uh huh. ;-))
>
Yup.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > You don't have a problem giving out who you work for and all do you ?
> >>
> >> Look phony, he's claiming to be a soldier serving in a combat zone, so
> >> why
> >> why he be afraid of telling the world what unit he's in?
> >
>
> > You like to sling around phony, it must be a new word for you.
> > As for if he is or is not serving in a combat zone you would know he
> > won't be giving out the unit for operationa security reasons.
>
> Hahahahahaha.
>
> A regular soldier in the zone can't give his unit designation.
Its called opsec, look it up sometime.
>
> No battalion, company, becasue of "spies". Like it would matter to the
> ragheads.
>
> You're saying mail coming out of a theater can't have the sender's name,
> rank, and unit ....
Might not have rank, I've seen that frequently.
Surely won't have what town the unit is based at.
>
> How does it get returned if undeliverble?
>
> You're obviuosly coming up very lame here, and I'm wondering why..
>
> Anybody reading this get mail form Iraq or Afghanistan?
Sent plenty there, Fedexed some stuff too
>
>
> >> Anybody with an ounce of character doesn't like people who claim false
> >> credentials, or wear medals they didn;t earn, or claim to be combat
> >> soldiers
> >> when they aren't.
> >
>
> > So why don't you stop making false claims ?
>
> Oh, I think people reading this can sort out who is making false claims.....
>
You have jumped on his unwillingness to give you his unit as proof he
isn't where he says he is.
That's pretty slim evidence to be claiming anything.
> >> By the way, ponce, he's posted through a cable provider in Lousiana.
> >> ponce.
> >
> > One centered in or around Leesville LA ?
> > Not suprising he might have USENET account there.
> >
> > You think he would be using a .mil to post to usenet ?
>
> I don't know, but its coming through a cable TV account. Maybe he can inform
> us, if it isn't "secret".
I can assure you he won't be using a military network to connect to his
usenet account.
tankfixer
says...
>
> "Dennis" <tsalag...@asus.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AF6D960BBEEAts...@130.133.1.4...
> > !Jones wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 06:22:34 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam "D. Spencer
> > Hines" wrote:
> >>
> >>>POOR Judgment on his part...
> >>
> >> So... *you* would have kicked her out of bed?
> >
> > I've got a next-door neighbor who looks a whole lot better. But hey,
> > maybe she *can* suck the chrome off a trailer hitch, who knows? She
> > better be able to.
>
> LOL.
>
> They paid her over $100k (in donated campaign funds) to make campaign
> videos, even though she had never done any of that kind of work before.
Hmm I wonder when the video's will show up on uPorn ?
>
> I wonder why? If he had got the nomination, they'd have to have a
> convention fight to get rid of him and start all over again, which would
> have meant *Hilary*.
>
>
--
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
Give me an instance of that happening.
What would a unit commander care, especially if someone was espousing a pro-
Bush line?
There are no prohibitions against military people giving their political
opinions on their off time.
> Do you give out your bosses name and the company you work for ?
If I was claiming credibility by claiming being in the military, or having
been in Iraq, or in some other job that bore relevance to the opinions I was
giving, I certainly would.
Vince Brannigan makes claims on special expertise all the time, and backs it
up by stating his job, and where he works.
William Black makes claims on special expertise all the time, and backs it
up by stating his invovlvemnt in historical societies and buying and selling
antique items.
I never make claims like that - I just post opinions backed up by facts and
logic.
The work I do has nothing to do with my opinions.
You and this "soldier in a combat zone" make an implicit claim of military
credibility, but won't back it up.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> Nobody who's a real soldier wants anyone trading on the status.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're the ponce, punk.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And if he's a real troop, why would he be afraid to state his unit
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> back
>> >> >> it up by showing he knows the officers running it?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> > Because you little progressives like to call and try and get people
>> >> > in
>> >> > trouble for boxing your ears here.
>> >>
>>
>> >> You couldn't box anybody's ears in here, punk.
>> >
>> > Seem you are on the ropes.
>>
>> Uh huh. ;-))
>>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > You don't have a problem giving out who you work for and all do you
>> >> > ?
>> >>
>> >> Look phony, he's claiming to be a soldier serving in a combat zone, so
>> >> why
>> >> why he be afraid of telling the world what unit he's in?
>> >
>>
>> > You like to sling around phony, it must be a new word for you.
>> > As for if he is or is not serving in a combat zone you would know he
>> > won't be giving out the unit for operationa security reasons.
>>
>> Hahahahahaha.
>>
>> A regular soldier in the zone can't give his unit designation.
>
> Its called opsec, look it up sometime.
Sure it is.
News reports give soldiers units, they sometimes discuss problems with
equipment ( that actually might help the enemy).
Besides you're not in Iraq. If you served there at all , it was a long time
ago.
>
>> No battalion, company, becasue of "spies". Like it would matter to the
>> ragheads.
>>
>> You're saying mail coming out of a theater can't have the sender's
>> name,
>> rank, and unit ....
>
> Might not have rank, I've seen that frequently.
> Surely won't have what town the unit is based at.
No sale.
Units move - but mail has unit designations s on it.
Troop's friends and families etc. have their names and unit designations.
There's almost always no miltary security violation in telling people what
unit you were in, or even what unit you're peresntly in.
>
>
>>
>> How does it get returned if undeliverble?
>>
>> You're obviuosly coming up very lame here, and I'm wondering why..
>>
>> Anybody reading this get mail form Iraq or Afghanistan?
>
> Sent plenty there, Fedexed some stuff too
>
>>
>>
>> >> Anybody with an ounce of character doesn't like people who claim false
>> >> credentials, or wear medals they didn;t earn, or claim to be combat
>> >> soldiers
>> >> when they aren't.
>> >
>>
>> > So why don't you stop making false claims ?
>>
>> Oh, I think people reading this can sort out who is making false
>> claims.....
>>
> You have jumped on his unwillingness to give you his unit as proof he
> isn't where he says he is.
> That's pretty slim evidence to be claiming anything.
Nearly incoherent.
He hasn't said he's unwilling - he just hasn't done it.
And neither have you, even though it was years ago and could not invovle
"opsec".
There's no rules about concealing regular unit designations or else the
local news channels wouldn't be broacasting them all over the place.
>> >> By the way, ponce, he's posted through a cable provider in Lousiana.
>> >> ponce.
>> >
>> > One centered in or around Leesville LA ?
>> > Not suprising he might have USENET account there.
>> >
>> > You think he would be using a .mil to post to usenet ?
>>
>> I don't know, but its coming through a cable TV account. Maybe he can
>> inform
>> us, if it isn't "secret".
>
> I can assure you he won't be using a military network to connect to his
> usenet account.
More likely, it's coming out of somebody's living room as he swills beer.
But, maybe i'm wrong.
So tell us how someone in Iraq or Afghanistan would post on usenet.
I think they would do it on regular web access to google groups, and not
wind up with an IP in Lousiana.
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <nOWdnQZq9sJ9LALV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.23094b0ba...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <R7udnYkxWYAjHALV...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
>> > says...
>> >> Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who one of the female posters,
>> >> sometime
>> >> back, said was claiming to have served in Iraq, but would not say what
>> >> unit
>> >> he was in when challenged on it?
>> >
>> > No, you are confused, again.
>> > No soldier is going to give you his unit, deployed or otherwise.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Is that you? Does anybody know if that pertains to this person?
>> >
>> > Getting desperate to try and drop a dime on somebody ?
>>
>> I honestly don't want to say anything against somebody who might actually
>> have served over there, but this secrecy claim regarding routine military
>> units, simply isn't ringing true.
> When you have progressives running around in usenet making calls to
> peoples commanders are you suprised he won't give out his unit ?
" progressives running around in usenet making calls to > peoples commanders
"
I can't improve on that...
>
> For that matter would anyone give who they work for at all ?
> Would you ?
> Think about it from that perspective.
If I was using my claim of work experience to claim credibility, then of
course I would.
>> Troops over there in interviews commonly mention units, and vehicles
>> commonly have unit designations, etc.
>
> You understand when they give a units name it has been cleared ?
No it hasn't been cleared. It's some reporter talking to guys in a unit and
people bantering back and forth.
The news is full of units, casualites in units, places, etc.
They even discuss weapons and vehicles and give out info on vulnerabiltiy to
IEDs etc.
>> This isn't ww2 - it doesn't do some raghead jihadi much good to know
>> unit
>> designations.
>
> It wouldn't suprise me if they have the equivilent somewhere of an S2
> section trying to put an OOB together.
> There are trained military folks on th eother side you know.
The only thing they can do is plant an IED and hope somebody drives by.
D. Spencer Hines
OPSEC is VERY important...
And several pogues here obviously do NOT understand it.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.230957238...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> It wouldn't surprise me if they have the equivalent somewhere of an S2
> section trying to put an OOB together.
Of COURSE they do.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:EoQnk.712$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
> Affirmative!
>
> OPSEC is VERY important...
>
> And several pogues here obviously do NOT understand it.
Hilarious!!
Several books I've read, written by American soldiers and Marines from
Iraq, often freely mention people's names and units, and even some
controversial actions.
This morning (8/11/08) I listend to an NPR report on current Special Forces
training and operations in Afghanistan. Units, operations and even names
were freely mentioned with one exception of an SF officer who didn't want
his last name used.
Another NPR piece was with a juror on the al Qaeda driver's jury. He freely
discussed most of the issues, but did want his last name ommited.
;-)))
It's always fun, Dave....
D. Spencer Hines
axioms of OPSEC, COMSEC and SIGSEC.
Attempting to carry on an actual conversation with him would be as useless
as trying to converse with a Chihuahua.
'Nuff Said.
Vide infra.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Deus Vult
"J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
news:KsOdnWXHmrJnWD3V...@earthlink.com...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:EoQnk.712$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
>> Affirmative!
>>
>> OPSEC is VERY important...
>>
>> And several pogues here obviously do NOT understand it.
>
> Hilarious!!
>
> Several books I've read, written by American soldiers and Marines from
> Iraq, often freely mention people's names and units, and even some
> controversial actions.
>
> This morning (8/11/08) I listend [sic] to an NPR report on current Special
> Forces
> training and operations in Afghanistan. Units, operations and even names
> were freely mentioned with one exception of an SF officer who didn't want
> his last name used.
>
> Another NPR piece was with a juror on the al Qaeda driver's jury. He
> freely
> discussed most of the issues, but did want his last name ommited. [sic]
>> --
>> DSH
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>> Vires et Honor
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.230957238...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> It wouldn't surprise me if they have the equivalent somewhere of an S2
>>> section trying to put an OOB together.
More than just ONE S2 section equivalent.
J A
> This pogue obviously doesn't have even the vaguest understanding of the
> axioms of OPSEC, COMSEC and SIGSEC.
>
> Attempting to carry on an actual conversation with him would be as useless
> as trying to converse with a Chihuahua.
Well, they did shift pogue Hines from Naval Intelligence, to landlubber real
estate, didn't they....
Now, it's 'Nuff Said. <chuckle>
D. Spencer Hines
This "J A" pogue obviously doesn't have even the vaguest understanding of
the AXIOMS of OPSEC, COMSEC and SIGSEC.
Attempting to carry on an actual conversation with him about OPSEC, COMSEC
and SIGSEC would be as useless as trying to converse with a Chihuahua --
because he is a Chihuahua.
He can only spout strawman red herrings, bark and ankle bite...
Never expect any SUBSTANCE from him.
But he provides low-order laughs in the summer, when the far more savvy
regulars here are on vacation.
He wants active duty military personnel, some of them in combat zones, to
reveal personal details about their work environment, operations, units and
supervisors -- whereas HE is totally unwilling to do the SAME, so we can
understand who and what he is, and indeed he always posts from behind a
PSEUDONYM -- and will reveal zip point zero about his OWN work environment,
organization, operations and supervisors -- so we can ascertain if he is
just another pimply-faced kid trying to assume the identity of a grown-up on
USENET.
Ergo his CREDIBILITY is ZERO.
Just another chaise longue chevalier, probably trying to shake loose some
inside information to regale his buddies with at his next bar-hopping
session after work -- as a techno-peon.
Suffice it to say, we are NOT dealing with unsophisticated "ragheads" in
the Global War On Islamofascist, Jihadist Terrorism -- as he so naively
assumes.
'Nuff Said.
Vide infra.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Deus Vult
"J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
More than just ONE S2 section equivalent. ******
J A
Is that why you can't tell us about all your top secret missions in SE Asia
40 years ago?
Was the base housing officer assignment just a cover? <chuckle>
Commander Dave should wake up - things have apparently changed from his days
as a secret agent...-
Several books I've read, written by American soldiers and Marines from
Iraq, often freely mention people's names and units, and even some
controversial actions.
This morning (8/11/08) I listened to an NPR report on current Special Forces
training and operations in Afghanistan. Units, operations and even names
were freely mentioned with one exception of an SF officer who didn't want
his last name used.
Another NPR piece was with a juror on the al Qaeda driver's jury. He freely
discussed most of the issues, but did want his last name ommited.
Shouldn't you be reporting these breeches to the Pentagon?
>He wants active duty military personnel, some of them in combat zones,
Posting on a cable TV hookup, from a combat zone in Louisiana....
Hilarious - I think Hines has been on the pipe again...
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:JM6ok.725$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Pogue J A's breech is popping right out of his breeches.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
news:cLydnXGbYvqhYT3V...@earthlink.com...
> Shouldn't you be reporting these breeches [sic] to the Pentagon?
tankfixer
Believe what you wish but I have personal knowledge of two instances.
>
>
>
> >
> > For that matter would anyone give who they work for at all ?
> > Would you ?
> > Think about it from that perspective.
>
> If I was using my claim of work experience to claim credibility, then of
> course I would.
Then knowing he works for the US Army should suit you just fine.
>
>
> >> Troops over there in interviews commonly mention units, and vehicles
> >> commonly have unit designations, etc.
> >
> > You understand when they give a units name it has been cleared ?
>
> No it hasn't been cleared. It's some reporter talking to guys in a unit and
> people bantering back and forth.
>
> The news is full of units, casualites in units, places, etc.
>
> They even discuss weapons and vehicles and give out info on vulnerabiltiy to
> IEDs etc.
Whatever is discussed is already in the open.
>
>
> >> This isn't ww2 - it doesn't do some raghead jihadi much good to know
> >> unit
> >> designations.
> >
>
> > It wouldn't suprise me if they have the equivilent somewhere of an S2
> > section trying to put an OOB together.
> > There are trained military folks on th eother side you know.
>
> The only thing they can do is plant an IED and hope somebody drives by.
Don't be naive
tankfixer
At one time I used my .mil email as the contact here.
>
> What would a unit commander care, especially if someone was espousing a pro-
> Bush line?
So that is your beef with him ?
You don't like his politics ?
>
> There are no prohibitions against military people giving their political
> opinions on their off time.
So why do you care what unit he is in or who his commander is ?
>
>
> > Do you give out your bosses name and the company you work for ?
>
> If I was claiming credibility by claiming being in the military, or having
> been in Iraq, or in some other job that bore relevance to the opinions I was
> giving, I certainly would.
>
> Vince Brannigan makes claims on special expertise all the time, and backs it
> up by stating his job, and where he works.
And it wouldn't suprise me if his employer has had crank calls.
>
> William Black makes claims on special expertise all the time, and backs it
> up by stating his invovlvemnt in historical societies and buying and selling
> antique items.
>
> I never make claims like that - I just post opinions backed up by facts and
> logic.
Remains to be seen.
>
> The work I do has nothing to do with my opinions.
>
> You and this "soldier in a combat zone" make an implicit claim of military
> credibility, but won't back it up.
I guees you will remain unsatisfied for I won't be giving you my unit or
commander.
Remain ignorant then.
>
> News reports give soldiers units, they sometimes discuss problems with
> equipment ( that actually might help the enemy).
>
> Besides you're not in Iraq. If you served there at all , it was a long time
> ago.
Never claimed I was, hope you didn't assume I was.
>
> >
> >> No battalion, company, becasue of "spies". Like it would matter to the
> >> ragheads.
> >>
> >> You're saying mail coming out of a theater can't have the sender's
> >> name,
> >> rank, and unit ....
> >
> > Might not have rank, I've seen that frequently.
> > Surely won't have what town the unit is based at.
>
> No sale.
Believe what you want.
>
> Units move - but mail has unit designations s on it.
>
> Troop's friends and families etc. have their names and unit designations.
>
> There's almost always no miltary security violation in telling people what
> unit you were in, or even what unit you're peresntly in.
Can you tell me why the "To Any Soldier" program no longer is in
existance ?
> >
> >>
> >> How does it get returned if undeliverble?
> >>
> >> You're obviuosly coming up very lame here, and I'm wondering why..
> >>
> >> Anybody reading this get mail form Iraq or Afghanistan?
> >
> > Sent plenty there, Fedexed some stuff too
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Anybody with an ounce of character doesn't like people who claim false
> >> >> credentials, or wear medals they didn;t earn, or claim to be combat
> >> >> soldiers
> >> >> when they aren't.
> >> >
> >>
> >> > So why don't you stop making false claims ?
> >>
> >> Oh, I think people reading this can sort out who is making false
> >> claims.....
> >>
>
>
> > You have jumped on his unwillingness to give you his unit as proof he
> > isn't where he says he is.
> > That's pretty slim evidence to be claiming anything.
>
> Nearly incoherent.
Move your lips when you read it then.
>
> He hasn't said he's unwilling - he just hasn't done it.
>
> And neither have you, even though it was years ago and could not invovle
> "opsec".
I'm CONUS and won't be telling you my unit. Live with it.
> There's no rules about concealing regular unit designations or else the
> local news channels wouldn't be broacasting them all over the place.
Guess you never were in and got the briefing .
>
>
> >> >> By the way, ponce, he's posted through a cable provider in Lousiana.
> >> >> ponce.
> >> >
> >> > One centered in or around Leesville LA ?
> >> > Not suprising he might have USENET account there.
> >> >
> >> > You think he would be using a .mil to post to usenet ?
> >>
> >> I don't know, but its coming through a cable TV account. Maybe he can
> >> inform
> >> us, if it isn't "secret".
> >
> > I can assure you he won't be using a military network to connect to his
> > usenet account.
>
> More likely, it's coming out of somebody's living room as he swills beer.
>
> But, maybe i'm wrong.
>
> So tell us how someone in Iraq or Afghanistan would post on usenet.
MWR computer to thier home ISP.
>
> I think they would do it on regular web access to google groups, and not
> wind up with an IP in Lousiana.
If google groups isn't blocked.
James Hogg
fake identity <pan...@excelsior.com>, wrote:
>This "J A" pogue
...
>always posts from behind a PSEUDONYM
...
>DSH
If JA is a pseudonym, what is DSH?
They both look like initials to me.
We know that JA stands for J Antero, and we have been told that
DSH stands for David Spencer Hines. (Although there is no
evidence for that except the little you have revealed yourself,
and given your record for dishonesty we know we can't trust
anything you say. Apart from innumerable but worthless
contributions to newsgroup debates, David Spencer Hines seems to
have made no recorded impact whatever on the world.)
What I don't understand is why you feel the need to hide behind
the pseudonym "Julia294". Why the sex change, David? The world
wants to know...
James
Renia
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:40:58 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines", using the
> fake identity <pan...@excelsior.com>, wrote:
>
>> This "J A" pogue
>
>
>> always posts from behind a PSEUDONYM
>
>
>> DSH
>
> If JA is a pseudonym, what is DSH?
>
> They both look like initials to me.
>
> We know that JA stands for J Antero, and we have been told that
> DSH stands for David Spencer Hines. (Although there is no
> evidence for that except the little you have revealed yourself,
> and given your record for dishonesty we know we can't trust
> anything you say. Apart from innumerable but worthless
> contributions to newsgroup debates, David Spencer Hines seems to
> have made no recorded impact whatever on the world.)
>
> What I don't understand is why you feel the need to hide behind
> the pseudonym "Julia294". Why the sex change, David? The world
> wants to know...
The world couldn't give a monkey's.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <RKSdnfWCWJSIVALVnZ2dnUVZ_tHin...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.230957238...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <nOWdnQZq9sJ9LALVnZ2dnUVZ_hmdn...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> > > says...
>
> > >> "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> > >>news:MPG.23094b0ba...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > >> > In article <R7udnYkxWYAjHALVnZ2dnUVZ_srin...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
Did you ever look up this guy's profile? Educational. Is this La N's
old buddy OMega?
Picture Combat Trooper
Name: Combat Trooper
Location:Anywhere in the world
Title:Soldier
Industry:Government
Email address:
omega....@gmail.com
Website or Blog:
Quote:
x-no-archive:yes
--
A True Believer is training to kill you. Training with minimal food
or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only
thing clean on him is his weapon and made be his web gear. He doesn't
worry about what workout to do- his ruck weighs what it weighs, his
runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not
concerned about 'hard', he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't
go home at 17:00, he is home. He knows only The Cause. Still want to
quit?
About me:
Average Rating:
(155 ratings)
Recent Activity:
Activity in
Saitek or CH Products? rec.aviation.simulators 41 hours ago
Watching American Jews drift away soc.culture.jewish.moderated 42
hours ago
ORTHODOX RABBIS VISIT TO POSTVILLE PLANT IS ANYTHING BUT KOSHER
soc.culture.jewish.moderated 42 hours ago
Watching American Jews drift away soc.culture.jewish.moderated 2
days ago
This has just come to my attention soc.culture.jewish.moderated 2
days ago
Anyone here currently in the military or working for government?
soc.culture.jewish.moderated Aug 4
This is happening in America? soc.culture.jewish.moderated Aug 4
Watching American Jews drift away soc.culture.jewish.moderated
Aug 2
Watching American Jews drift away soc.culture.jewish.moderated
Aug 2
American Jews and Hispanic Pentecostals
soc.culture.jewish.moderated Aug 2
Show all »
Post Activity
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005 541 1236 1808 1057 1227 1806 1072
2006 705 986 1377 1369 247 555 975 757 407 206 10 68
2007 350 157 117 165 66 104 57 105 25 60
2008 55 37 109 18 34 78 36 28
La N
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b595c774-1d53-4341...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
*****
Heh heh .. *my* friend? Tanky is indeed supporting and defending the known
ubberk00k Omega who - despite Tanky's defense of the loon's freedom of
speech - has been held accountable for some of the shite he has posted on
Usenet, including advocating murder of all Democrats and of myself, for
being a liberal Canadian. He also has posted that he would turn a blind eye
in Iraq if his men were to kill [innocent civilians]. Tanky has implied
some "progressive" phoned in his (Omega's) employer. I'm wondering if
Tanky wants to take a little journey through the wayback machine.
I told Tanky and his buddies, and I posted publicly that Omega (I know his
real name) had better STFU or he's going to find himself in a sh*tload of
trouble. In fact, as I told Tanky and his buddies that if Omega were a
Canadian, in the CF, I would have a moral and legal obligation to report his
actions, especially when/if that person expressed homicidal intent. I'm
thinking that either one of *them* made the phone call or that my public
admonitions quieted the loon down a few notches.
Now, back to our regular programming ...
- nilita
tankfixer
says...
I'm defending an idiots right to say what he cares.
I seem to remember doing the same for others, yourself included.
Was that a mistake ?
> Tanky has implied
> some "progressive" phoned in his (Omega's) employer. I'm wondering if
> Tanky wants to take a little journey through the wayback machine.
You really should work on your reading comprehension Miss Lan.
I'm not implied any such thing.
Infact you are also aware of oone of th eincatnaces of a soldiers unit
being called, or have you forgoten ?
>
> I told Tanky and his buddies, and I posted publicly that Omega (I know his
> real name) had better STFU or he's going to find himself in a sh*tload of
> trouble. In fact, as I told Tanky and his buddies that if Omega were a
> Canadian, in the CF, I would have a moral and legal obligation to report his
> actions, especially when/if that person expressed homicidal intent. I'm
> thinking that either one of *them* made the phone call or that my public
> admonitions quieted the loon down a few notches.
You know I've busted good old Oggemga out any number of times in the
past for his stupid ideas and his obscene comments.
If I'd though he was doing anything more than making outragious
statements for the purpose of pissing people off it's an easy matter to
look up his unit in AKO and turn him hin.
>
> Now, back to our regular programming ...
tankfixer
79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
You mean the fellow we are discussing I hope.
It's not me that is for sure.
Jeffrey Hamilton
Fascinating, I was wondering why I wasn't seeing this loons original posts.
I must have already concluded he was insane and at some earlier date I
killfiled him. It would appear *tankfixer* has decided to give him a
platform.
Pity.
cheers....Jeff
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> And neither have you, even though it was years ago and could not invovle
>> "opsec".
>
> I'm CONUS and won't be telling you my unit. Live with it.
But you won't even tell us what unit you were with years ago in Iraq.
More OPSEC?
>> There's no rules about concealing regular unit designations or else the
>> local news channels wouldn't be broacasting them all over the place.
>
> Guess you never were in and got the briefing .
Not credible to anyone who listens to newscasts, or reads news articles
from Iraq or Afghanistan, and has heard units mentioned.
Especially not credible regarding mentioning a unit served in years before.
As I've said before, I don't want to discredit someone who has actually
served, but there are a lot of wanabes who want to pretend they have, or
are, serving.
J A
"James Hogg" <Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t8f2a4la4pq88l2b8...@4ax.com...
It's "OPSEC".
When the gormless git is posting his important undercover "briefings" to us
as "Julia", he's in mufti, down to the pantyhose, for "OPSEX", oops, I
mean OPSEC.....
When posting as "Tiger" (not very imaginative since he uses "Panther" in a
DSH email address), imagine him in a lavender Edwardian polyester
leisuresuit, flashy bling jewlery, with a giant Afro hair piece..., Isaac
Hayes would be proud..
"he da maaain" ...
But, since this goes to a British group, and it's about "OPSEC", let's move
on to something more relevant than DSH's incessant quacking....
" Suskind reveals that skillful British agents had managed to develop two
highly placed sources within the Iraqi government prior to the start of the
war--the head of intelligence who supposedly wrote the incriminating letter
and the foreign minister.
Both told the British that there were no weapons of mass destruction and
explained why. This news was passed to the White House, which chose to
ignore it. Suskind points out that the CIA had been totally unable to
develop such sources. He also tells an even more alarming tale about how
George Bush deliberately blew the British operation that was watching the
development of the plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic.
Despite American urgings to shut the plot down immediately, the British
wanted to wait until the plotters revealed their plans and contacts. They
were forced to act prematurely when the US had Pakistan arrest a key
intermediary between the plotters in Britain and al-Qaeda.
The purpose was apparently to allow Bush to claim progress in preventing
terrorism in the run-up to the 2006 congressional elections. "
Now, that's "OPSEC".
J A
> Hilarious!
>
> Pogue J A's breech is popping right out of his breeches.
That was a snare set for "Julia" ....
And guess what? <chuckle chuckle>
tankfixer
says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>
>
>
> >> And neither have you, even though it was years ago and could not invovle
> >> "opsec".
> >
> > I'm CONUS and won't be telling you my unit. Live with it.
>
> But you won't even tell us what unit you were with years ago in Iraq.
That's where you are so very confused.
I never claimed to have been in Iraq.
>
> More OPSEC?
Seems to be working, doesn't it ?
>
> >> There's no rules about concealing regular unit designations or else the
> >> local news channels wouldn't be broacasting them all over the place.
> >
> > Guess you never were in and got the briefing .
>
> Not credible to anyone who listens to newscasts, or reads news articles
> from Iraq or Afghanistan, and has heard units mentioned.
I figured you would dodge the issue.
If you have never had the briefing you haven't a clue what a soldier is
told he can and cannot tell the random reporting who walks up.
News stories and broadcasts both had a PAO around during the research
and if a unit is mentioned it was with permission.
>
> Especially not credible regarding mentioning a unit served in years before.
>
> As I've said before, I don't want to discredit someone who has actually
> served, but there are a lot of wanabes who want to pretend they have, or
> are, serving.
A noble intention.
How do you intend to implement it ?
tankfixer
says...
You should go look up posts by "omega" and see just who all beat him
about the head and shoulders for many of his ideas and stands.
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <78WdnQPeNNUskD_V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> >> And neither have you, even though it was years ago and could not
>> >> invovle
>> >> "opsec".
>> >
>> > I'm CONUS and won't be telling you my unit. Live with it.
>>
>> But you won't even tell us what unit you were with years ago in Iraq.
>
> That's where you are so very confused.
> I never claimed to have been in Iraq.
Now wait a minute, somebody refered to you being in Iraq.
And how could you be in an armored unit, and NOT wind up for at least one
tour in Iraq, or Aghanistan?
Are you at Lewis?
>> More OPSEC?
>
> Seems to be working, doesn't it ?
You need operational security for internet posting?
So "progressives won't get you? ;-))
>> >> There's no rules about concealing regular unit designations or else
>> >> the
>> >> local news channels wouldn't be broacasting them all over the place.
>> >
>> > Guess you never were in and got the briefing .
>>
>> Not credible to anyone who listens to newscasts, or reads news articles
>> from Iraq or Afghanistan, and has heard units mentioned.
>
> I figured you would dodge the issue.
> If you have never had the briefing you haven't a clue what a soldier is
> told he can and cannot tell the random reporting who walks up.
> News stories and broadcasts both had a PAO around during the research
> and if a unit is mentioned it was with permission.
>
>>
>> Especially not credible regarding mentioning a unit served in years
>> before.
>>
>> As I've said before, I don't want to discredit someone who has actually
>> served, but there are a lot of wanabes who want to pretend they have, or
>> are, serving.
>
> A noble intention.
>
> How do you intend to implement it ?
Why are so evasive?
All the military people I know are proud of their service and freely talk
about their units and jobs.
What kind of weapons or AFVs are you familiar with?
Or is that a secret, too?
tankfixer
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.230be2c15...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <78WdnQPeNNUskD_V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> And neither have you, even though it was years ago and could not
> >> >> invovle
> >> >> "opsec".
> >> >
> >> > I'm CONUS and won't be telling you my unit. Live with it.
> >>
> >> But you won't even tell us what unit you were with years ago in Iraq.
> >
>
> > That's where you are so very confused.
> > I never claimed to have been in Iraq.
>
> Now wait a minute, somebody refered to you being in Iraq.
Who was it ?
For they were incorrect.
If I'd seen it I'd have corrected them.
>
> And how could you be in an armored unit, and NOT wind up for at least one
> tour in Iraq, or Aghanistan?
Why would you assume that I am in an armored unit ?
Do you assume all "tankfixer" are assigned to them ?
The nym I use here is from my early days on USENET.
I never bothered to change it as my duties changed.
>
> Are you at Lewis?
Been there a few times in the past.
>
>
> >> More OPSEC?
> >
> > Seems to be working, doesn't it ?
>
>
> You need operational security for internet posting?
I'd point you to the training materials but I doubt you can access
them...
>
> So "progressives won't get you? ;-))
They are so full of love and nonviolence.
>
>
> >> >> There's no rules about concealing regular unit designations or else
> >> >> the
> >> >> local news channels wouldn't be broacasting them all over the place.
> >> >
> >> > Guess you never were in and got the briefing .
> >>
> >> Not credible to anyone who listens to newscasts, or reads news articles
> >> from Iraq or Afghanistan, and has heard units mentioned.
> >
> > I figured you would dodge the issue.
> > If you have never had the briefing you haven't a clue what a soldier is
> > told he can and cannot tell the random reporting who walks up.
> > News stories and broadcasts both had a PAO around during the research
> > and if a unit is mentioned it was with permission.
> >
> >>
> >> Especially not credible regarding mentioning a unit served in years
> >> before.
> >>
> >> As I've said before, I don't want to discredit someone who has actually
> >> served, but there are a lot of wanabes who want to pretend they have, or
> >> are, serving.
> >
>
> > A noble intention.
> >
> > How do you intend to implement it ?
>
> Why are so evasive?
Evasive ?
Sorry but you don't understand it seems.
>
> All the military people I know are proud of their service and freely talk
> about their units and jobs.
They do so to your face, not to an anonymous name on USENET.
>
> What kind of weapons or AFVs are you familiar with?
M60A1
M60A1 TTS
M60A3
M1
M1A1
M109 SP howitzer
M113
M2 bradley
M3 Bradley
M901
M101 howitzer
M102 howitzer
M30 4.2 Mortar
M1 81mm Mortar
90mm RR
M2 .50 MG
M85 MG
M73 MG
M219 MG
M60 MG
M249 MG
M240 MG
Mk 19 GL
M16A1/A2 & M4
M203 GL
M14 (and NM)
M1903A3
M1917 Enfield
Type 97 MG
M9 Pistol
M1911A1 pistol (plus NM)
Plus some I'me sure I forgot...
>
> Or is that a secret, too?
Sooper secret.
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <4MqdnTajecvo2j_V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.230be2c15...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <78WdnQPeNNUskD_V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> And neither have you, even though it was years ago and could not
>> >> >> invovle
>> >> >> "opsec".
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm CONUS and won't be telling you my unit. Live with it.
>> >>
>> >> But you won't even tell us what unit you were with years ago in Iraq.
>> >
>>
>> > That's where you are so very confused.
>> > I never claimed to have been in Iraq.
>>
>> Now wait a minute, somebody refered to you being in Iraq.
>
> Who was it ?
> For they were incorrect.
> If I'd seen it I'd have corrected them.
Probably LaN.
>> And how could you be in an armored unit, and NOT wind up for at least one
>> tour in Iraq, or Aghanistan?
>
> Why would you assume that I am in an armored unit ?
>
> Do you assume all "tankfixer" are assigned to them ?
>
> The nym I use here is from my early days on USENET.
> I never bothered to change it as my duties changed.
So you worked on tanks, but transferred to arty, infantry, aviation over the
last 5 or 10 years?
Is this more OPSEC?
>> Are you at Lewis?
>
> Been there a few times in the past.
But not now?
>> >> More OPSEC?
>> >
>> > Seems to be working, doesn't it ?
>>
>>
>> You need operational security for internet posting?
>
> I'd point you to the training materials but I doubt you can access
> them...
More evasion.
>> So "progressives won't get you? ;-))
>
> They are so full of love and nonviolence.
Ah, I see, the "progressives" create the need for "OPSEC".
I think I do.
>> All the military people I know are proud of their service and freely talk
>> about their units and jobs.
>
> They do so to your face, not to an anonymous name on USENET.
Of course they do. It's just you that doesn't.
Some of them discuss their service freely in here.
So you've been in armor a long time, but no Iraq or Afghan duty, and your
fear of "progressives" keeps you from telling us anything about where you're
serving now..
OK. ;-))
tankfixer
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.230bf0ce1...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <4MqdnTajecvo2j_V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.230be2c15...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <78WdnQPeNNUskD_V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> And neither have you, even though it was years ago and could not
> >> >> >> invovle
> >> >> >> "opsec".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm CONUS and won't be telling you my unit. Live with it.
> >> >>
> >> >> But you won't even tell us what unit you were with years ago in Iraq.
> >> >
> >>
> >> > That's where you are so very confused.
> >> > I never claimed to have been in Iraq.
> >>
> >> Now wait a minute, somebody refered to you being in Iraq.
> >
>
> > Who was it ?
> > For they were incorrect.
> > If I'd seen it I'd have corrected them.
>
> Probably LaN.
If she made such a statement then she knows it was a mistake.
I know who she might have been referring to and yes he was in Iraq for a
year.
>
> >> And how could you be in an armored unit, and NOT wind up for at least one
> >> tour in Iraq, or Aghanistan?
> >
> > Why would you assume that I am in an armored unit ?
> >
> > Do you assume all "tankfixer" are assigned to them ?
> >
> > The nym I use here is from my early days on USENET.
> > I never bothered to change it as my duties changed.
>
> So you worked on tanks, but transferred to arty, infantry, aviation over the
> last 5 or 10 years?
You are so very confused.
Started in Infantry back in the day.
Had some flights on Aviation.
>
> Is this more OPSEC?
No, just you misunderstanding.
>
> >> Are you at Lewis?
> >
> > Been there a few times in the past.
>
>
> But not now?
Who knows.
>
> >> >> More OPSEC?
> >> >
> >> > Seems to be working, doesn't it ?
> >>
> >>
>
>
> >> You need operational security for internet posting?
> >
> > I'd point you to the training materials but I doubt you can access
> > them...
>
> More evasion.
Go try at CALL.
Maybe you can learn something.
>
> >> So "progressives won't get you? ;-))
> >
> > They are so full of love and nonviolence.
>
>
> Ah, I see, the "progressives" create the need for "OPSEC".
Perhaps, why not ask Anastasia about it ?
Seen no evidence.
>
>
> >> All the military people I know are proud of their service and freely talk
> >> about their units and jobs.
> >
> > They do so to your face, not to an anonymous name on USENET.
>
> Of course they do. It's just you that doesn't.
Funny but I my many years I've not seen much like that.
I'm sure you can point me to some threads where it occurred.
>
> Some of them discuss their service freely in here.
>
> So you've been in armor a long time, but no Iraq or Afghan duty, and your
> fear of "progressives" keeps you from telling us anything about where you're
> serving now..
Keep your day job, you suck as a journalist.
>
> OK. ;-))
>
What's wrong, you still googling all those systems ?
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
We're not confused, we're doubtful.
>> Is this more OPSEC?
>
> No, just you misunderstanding.
>
>>
>> >> Are you at Lewis?
>> >
>> > Been there a few times in the past.
>>
>>
>> But not now?
>
> Who knows.
>
>>
>> >> >> More OPSEC?
>> >> >
>> >> > Seems to be working, doesn't it ?
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>> >> You need operational security for internet posting?
>> >
>> > I'd point you to the training materials but I doubt you can access
>> > them...
>>
>> More evasion.
>
> Go try at CALL.
> Maybe you can learn something.
>
>>
>> >> So "progressives won't get you? ;-))
>> >
>> > They are so full of love and nonviolence.
>>
>>
>> Ah, I see, the "progressives" create the need for "OPSEC".
>
> Perhaps, why not ask Anastasia about it ?
Tell us about Anastasia.
Well, your non-answers and evasions
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> All the military people I know are proud of their service and freely
>> >> talk
>> >> about their units and jobs.
>> >
>> > They do so to your face, not to an anonymous name on USENET.
>>
>> Of course they do. It's just you that doesn't.
>
> Funny but I my many years I've not seen much like that.
> I'm sure you can point me to some threads where it occurred.
Look at Billzz's posts, for one,
He's an actual veteran.
>> Some of them discuss their service freely in here.
>>
>> So you've been in armor a long time, but no Iraq or Afghan duty, and your
>> fear of "progressives" keeps you from telling us anything about where
>> you're
>> serving now..
>
> Keep your day job, you suck as a journalist.
Oh, I think we've got the picture.
You say you've been in armor a long time, but no Iraq or Afghan duty, and
your
fear of "progressives" keeps you from telling us anything about where
you're
serving now..
>
>>
>> OK. ;-))
>>
>
> What's wrong, you still googling all those systems ?
It looks like you cut pasted them off a list.
tankfixer
Now it's we ?
That's rather interesting.
I think the doctors have diagnosis for that issue.
No matter, if you wish to assume things I can't stop you.
>
>
>
> >> Is this more OPSEC?
> >
> > No, just you misunderstanding.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> Are you at Lewis?
> >> >
> >> > Been there a few times in the past.
> >>
> >>
> >> But not now?
> >
> > Who knows.
> >
> >>
> >> >> >> More OPSEC?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Seems to be working, doesn't it ?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> You need operational security for internet posting?
> >> >
> >> > I'd point you to the training materials but I doubt you can access
> >> > them...
> >>
> >> More evasion.
> >
> > Go try at CALL.
> > Maybe you can learn something.
> >
> >>
> >> >> So "progressives won't get you? ;-))
> >> >
> >> > They are so full of love and nonviolence.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, I see, the "progressives" create the need for "OPSEC".
> >
>
>
> > Perhaps, why not ask Anastasia about it ?
>
> Tell us about Anastasia.
Some nice progressives took her to the country.
Never came home.
So enough about me, why don't you tell us where you work and what you do
?
Maybe who your boss is too while you are at it.
I'm sure it's all very relevant to your vast knowledge of the US Army.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> All the military people I know are proud of their service and freely
> >> >> talk
> >> >> about their units and jobs.
> >> >
> >> > They do so to your face, not to an anonymous name on USENET.
> >>
> >> Of course they do. It's just you that doesn't.
> >
> > Funny but I my many years I've not seen much like that.
> > I'm sure you can point me to some threads where it occurred.
>
> Look at Billzz's posts, for one,
Yes.
I don't recall him identifying more than types of units.
But feel free to be more specific.
>
> He's an actual veteran.
So you doubt I am, oh well.
Maybe you should kill file me then and move on.
>
>
> >> Some of them discuss their service freely in here.
> >>
> >> So you've been in armor a long time, but no Iraq or Afghan duty, and your
> >> fear of "progressives" keeps you from telling us anything about where
> >> you're
> >> serving now..
> >
>
> > Keep your day job, you suck as a journalist.
>
> Oh, I think we've got the picture.
Again with the we.
>
> You say you've been in armor a long time, but no Iraq or Afghan duty, and
> your fear of "progressives" keeps you from telling us anything about where
> you're serving now..
No, You once more make up things that arn't true.
Never said I was ever with an armor unit, you assume that.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> OK. ;-))
> >>
> >
> > What's wrong, you still googling all those systems ?
>
> It looks like you cut pasted them off a list.
Really, so why don't you show us which one it was.
Or are you making up more things because you are frustrated I won't give
you my unit.
Once works on lots of systems over the years.
> >
> >>
> >> >> What kind of weapons or AFVs are you familiar with?
> >> >
> >> > M60A1
> >> > M60A1 TTS
> >> > M60A3
> >> > M1
> >> > M1A1
> >> > M109 SP howitzer
> >> > M113
> >> > M2 bradley
> >> > M3 Bradley
> >> > M901
> >> >
> >> > M101 howitzer
> >> > M102 howitzer
> >> > M30 4.2 Mortar
> >> > M1 81mm Mortar
> >> > 90mm RR
> >> > M2 .50 MG
> >> > M85 MG
--
Surreyman
> This is not the kind of situation for a formal intervention by US forces.
>
> Civilian volunteers are needed and this is an opportunity for our nation's
> fervent interventionists to fight the forces of dictatorship,
> anti-democracy, and the anti-jebus...
Oh sure.
Just watch the big-mouths all rush.
Surreyman
Jeffrey Hamilton
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
I don't need too. I killfiled him ages ago, precisely because_ I _don't
_want_ to_ see_ his_ nonsense.
You're giving him a platform, pure and simple.
Whatever I guess, USENET is a free world, in this instance, many have
elected to remove this poster from their monitor screen. You, in your
infinite wisdom, have decided to piggyback him back onto our monitors.
I might add, I wish you were as verbose when discussing _your_beloved
Republican party, as you are with 'omega'.
cheers....Jeff
tankfixer
says...
I'm not the one replying to him now.
Only discussing his shortcomings
> Whatever I guess, USENET is a free world, in this instance, many have
> elected to remove this poster from their monitor screen. You, in your
> infinite wisdom, have decided to piggyback him back onto our monitors.
I guess if I killfiled everyone who's ideas or comments I didn't like
things might seem better.
But then I'd only have the echo of those who think in lockstep with my
opinions.
A group of one gets boring after awhile.
>
> I might add, I wish you were as verbose when discussing _your_beloved
> Republican party, as you are with 'omega'.
I love how progressives always assume anyone not thinking like they do
must be "republicans"
Jack Linthicum
> In article <UWCok.2943$in....@read1.cgocable.net>, bberesf...@cogeco.ca
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tankfixer" <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> > > In article <ZYhok.3964$Wm.2...@read2.cgocable.net>, bberesf...@cogeco.ca
> > > says...
> > >> La N wrote:
> > >> > "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
No, no, it's the people not thinking at all that are Republicans. Did
you catch McCain?
"So, to move on to domestic questions, Steve Schmidt, who is running
your campaign, has said something kind of simple and understandable.
He said that a campaign needs one positive message about its candidate
and then one good, strong negative message about the opponent. Your
camp —
I never heard that statement, and I'd have to know who attributed it
to him before I would agree with that. We're not sending any negative
message in our campaign. We're drawing differences in positions
between myself and Sen. Obama, which are significant. He wants to
raise taxes; I want to keep them low. He doesn't want to drill
offshore or have nuclear power; I want both. I've never heard Steve
Schmidt say we need a negative message in the campaign."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93548659
Vincent Brannigan
>
>> I might add, I wish you were as verbose when discussing _your_beloved
>> Republican party, as you are with 'omega'.
>
> I love how progressives always assume anyone not thinking like they do
> must be "republicans"
>
>
Well lets see
One loyal bushie, the AG, just decided that no lying cheating loyal
busies can be held responsible for appointing other loyal bushies
unlawfully to federal jobs , and no, the guys who got the jobs have
nothing to worry about Since Bushies stole them fair and square by
having other loyal busies actually do the dirty work and then quit
The New York Times
August 13, 2008
Editorial
Mr. Mukasey in Denial
Conservatives like to talk about personal responsibility, but Attorney
General Michael Mukasey does not seem to think it applies to the Bush
administration. In a speech on Tuesday, he described the shameful
politicization of the Justice Department as a "painful" episode in which
"the system failed."
Mr. Mukasey made no mention of the role played by his predecessor,
Alberto Gonzales, and other members of President Bush's inner circle.
There is by now strong reason to believe that they were involved in
plans to fire United States attorneys for political reasons, fill other
important positions on the basis of partisanship rather than competence
and order prosecutions designed to help Republicans win elections.
The department has never properly pursued the bad actors. It has shown
no real concern for the victims. Mr. Mukasey's cynical remarks shrugging
off the whole scandal should prod Congress to pursue it even more
vigorously.
The Justice Department's inspector general and its ethics office have
issued a pair of reports confirming that top aides to Mr. Gonzales
improperly used political litmus tests to fill nonpolitical positions.
The politics was remarkably crude. One example: a career terrorism
prosecutor was turned down for a counterterrorism position because his
wife was an active Democrat.
Mr. Mukasey told the American Bar Association that he did not see any
crimes to prosecute. "Not every wrong, or even every violation of the
law, is a crime," he said. In any case, the wrongdoers have been
punished, he claimed, by "substantial negative publicity."
Right
Vince
tankfixer
@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
>
> No, no, it's the people not thinking at all that are Republicans. Did
> you catch McCain?
>
> "So, to move on to domestic questions, Steve Schmidt, who is running
> your campaign, has said something kind of simple and understandable.
> He said that a campaign needs one positive message about its candidate
> and then one good, strong negative message about the opponent. Your
> camp ?
>
> I never heard that statement, and I'd have to know who attributed it
> to him before I would agree with that. We're not sending any negative
> message in our campaign. We're drawing differences in positions
> between myself and Sen. Obama, which are significant. He wants to
> raise taxes; I want to keep them low. He doesn't want to drill
> offshore or have nuclear power; I want both. I've never heard Steve
> Schmidt say we need a negative message in the campaign."
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93548659
>
Differences in policy, are you saying candidates can't critizise thier
opponents espoused policies ?
Negative is floating the rumors the Clinton campaign slipped into the
media about Obama during the primaries.
tankfixer
> tankfixer wrote:
>
> >
> >> I might add, I wish you were as verbose when discussing _your_beloved
> >> Republican party, as you are with 'omega'.
> >
> > I love how progressives always assume anyone not thinking like they do
> > must be "republicans"
> >
> >
>
> Well lets see
> One loyal bushie, the AG, just decided that no lying cheating loyal
> busies can be held responsible for appointing other loyal bushies
> unlawfully to federal jobs , and no, the guys who got the jobs have
> nothing to worry about Since Bushies stole them fair and square by
> having other loyal busies actually do the dirty work and then quit
You act like you are amazed that partisanship had anything to do with
the appointment of government officials.
Do you actually think this might be the first time it happened Vince ?
So what is your solution Vince ?
Tar ?
Feathers ?
If you think they should be prosecuted then tell us what statute you
intend to charge them under ?
Or is this just more of your virulent hatred of Bush showing through ?
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
But Schmidt did say it. McCain likes to switch back and forth between
hard ass crackers and shocked amazement that anyone would think he
would lie. You know his campaign manager was a paid employee of
Georgia until May of this year and he still owns the company that
represents Georgia to people like McCain and other government figures?
Vincent Brannigan
> In article <16Gok.716$EL2.262@trnddc01>, fir...@firelaw.us says...
>> tankfixer wrote:
>>
>>>> I might add, I wish you were as verbose when discussing
>>>> _your_beloved Republican party, as you are with 'omega'.
>>> I love how progressives always assume anyone not thinking like
>>> they do must be "republicans"
>>>
>>>
>> Well lets see One loyal bushie, the AG, just decided that no lying
>> cheating loyal busies can be held responsible for appointing other
>> loyal bushies unlawfully to federal jobs , and no, the guys who got
>> the jobs have nothing to worry about Since Bushies stole them fair
>> and square by having other loyal busies actually do the dirty work
>> and then quit
>
> You act like you are amazed that partisanship had anything to do with
> the appointment of government officials. Do you actually think this
> might be the first time it happened Vince ?
>
These are civil service merit appointments
Its a law
They broke the law, they knew it and the Bush Administration is making
sure they get away with it
I guess you love law breakers as long as they are loyal bushies
No outrage at their immorality and unlawful behavior?
Oh thats right they are loyal bushies so above any criticism
Vince
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
A number of people have have expressed doubts about you, hence the "we".
And your evasions have only amplified those doubts.
As discussed before, it is you who is claiming to be a vet, not me.
If someone called the personel locator at Fort Lewis (253) 967-1110, could
they find a "Paul Carrier" on the base list? I doubt it.
J A
"Surreyman" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fe4ed2e1-6908-471e...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You called it right.
> Surreyman
tankfixer
Really ?
Who.
Go on, don't be bashful, name them.
Better yet have one with AKO access look me up.
>
> And your evasions have only amplified those doubts.
Lets talk about your credentials in the military filed then.
This should be a two way street, if you want to know so much about me
then you should be willing to share your own military experiance with
the crowd.
>
> As discussed before, it is you who is claiming to be a vet, not me.
>
> If someone called the personel locator at Fort Lewis (253) 967-1110, could
> they find a "Paul Carrier" on the base list? I doubt it.
As I suspected, you are looking to cause someone grief.
tankfixer
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <16Gok.716$EL2.262@trnddc01>, fir...@firelaw.us says...
> >> tankfixer wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I might add, I wish you were as verbose when discussing
> >>>> _your_beloved Republican party, as you are with 'omega'.
> >>> I love how progressives always assume anyone not thinking like
> >>> they do must be "republicans"
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Well lets see One loyal bushie, the AG, just decided that no lying
> >> cheating loyal busies can be held responsible for appointing other
> >> loyal bushies unlawfully to federal jobs , and no, the guys who got
> >> the jobs have nothing to worry about Since Bushies stole them fair
> >> and square by having other loyal busies actually do the dirty work
> >> and then quit
> >
> > You act like you are amazed that partisanship had anything to do with
> > the appointment of government officials. Do you actually think this
> > might be the first time it happened Vince ?
> >
>
> These are civil service merit appointments
> Its a law
Yes, and I'm sure this is the first time it was ever broken.
> They broke the law, they knew it and the Bush Administration is making
> sure they get away with it
What prevents a prosecuter from charging them if you think someone
committed a crime?
Never said that.
> Oh thats right they are loyal bushies so above any criticism
So what should I do, stomp my feet on USENET about it ?
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> >
>> > No matter, if you wish to assume things I can't stop you.
>>
>> A number of people have have expressed doubts about you, hence the "we".
>
> Really ?
> Who.
> Go on, don't be bashful, name them.
LaN, Ray Ohara, just from immediate memory.
>> And your evasions have only amplified those doubts.
> Lets talk about your credentials in the military filed then.
For the 4th time - * I haven't claimed any. *
All I'm asking is that since YOU have made such cliams, that you support
them with proof.
As I've said before, there are a lot of wanabe pretenders claiming service,
that don't deserve to.
Like some guy who says he's a sodiler in a combat zone, but posts through a
cable TV hookup in Lousinana.
> This should be a two way street, if you want to know so much about me
> then you should be willing to share your own military experiance with
> the crowd.
Again, that's a stupid thing to say.
You claimed to be a vet, not me.
It's you who has been evasive about his claims all through the thread, not
me.
You've been in the US army for a long time, you say, but no Iraq or Afghan
duty ?
From where you're posting there's, there's only one army base - Fort Lewis,
but you have claimed not to be based there.
>> As discussed before, it is you who is claiming to be a vet, not me.
>>
>> If someone called the personel locator at Fort Lewis (253) 967-1110,
>> could
>> they find a "Paul Carrier" on the base list? I doubt it.
>
> As I suspected, you are looking to cause someone grief.
Bullshit.
How could I or anybody else casue you "grief"?
The army doesn't care about anybody's usenet posting, off-duty.
Do you think anybody believes you?
Vincent Brannigan
The Bushie prosecuter in chief says they skate. He ahs no shame but he
is a bushie
I guess you love law breakers as long as they are loyal bushies
>> No outrage at their immorality and unlawful behavior?
>>
>
> Never said that.
>
>> Oh thats right they are loyal bushies so above any criticism
>
>
> So what should I do, stomp my feet on USENET about it ?
>
>
>
No you should say Bush and his party are a shameful bunch of lawbreaking
creeps
Vince
La N
"Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:PpKok.1024$T91.849@trnddc04...
Don't think that will happen. Remember last year Tanky was arguing for
Scooter Libby's innocence right to the bitter end and then beyond?
- nilita
tankfixer
says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.230d096f4...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> >> >
> >> > No matter, if you wish to assume things I can't stop you.
> >>
> >> A number of people have have expressed doubts about you, hence the "we".
> >
>
> > Really ?
> > Who.
> > Go on, don't be bashful, name them.
>
> LaN, Ray Ohara, just from immediate memory.
LaN knows better than to say such a thing.
I'd hope she steps up to the plate here and say so.
Ray Ohare is hardly an endorsement for any cause.
>
>
> >> And your evasions have only amplified those doubts.
>
> > Lets talk about your credentials in the military filed then.
>
>
> For the 4th time - * I haven't claimed any. *
So on what grounds do you challenge anyones credentials ?
>
> All I'm asking is that since YOU have made such cliams, that you support
> them with proof.
Why don't you tell us what claims you think I have made ?
> As I've said before, there are a lot of wanabe pretenders claiming service,
> that don't deserve to.
So the basis of your claim that I'm not is because I won't tell you my
whole life story here on USENET ?
That's a mighty slim thread to hang on to.
>
> Like some guy who says he's a sodiler in a combat zone, but posts through a
> cable TV hookup in Lousinana.
If he is the same fellow who used to post as "omega" then he is in the
Army.
Easy enough to confirm if you have AKO access.
>
>
> > This should be a two way street, if you want to know so much about me
> > then you should be willing to share your own military experiance with
> > the crowd.
>
> Again, that's a stupid thing to say.
>
> You claimed to be a vet, not me.
You assumed I'm a vet.
I'm not, yet.
>
> It's you who has been evasive about his claims all through the thread, not
> me.
Actually I've not answered them at all, nothing evasive about it.
>
> You've been in the US army for a long time, you say, but no Iraq or Afghan
> duty ?
Since Jesus was a corporal it seems sometimes.
>
> From where you're posting there's, there's only one army base - Fort Lewis,
> but you have claimed not to be based there.
Keep your day job, Intel analyst you are not.
> >> As discussed before, it is you who is claiming to be a vet, not me.
> >>
> >> If someone called the personel locator at Fort Lewis (253) 967-1110,
> >> could
> >> they find a "Paul Carrier" on the base list? I doubt it.
> >
>
> > As I suspected, you are looking to cause someone grief.
>
> Bullshit.
Why are you so eager to get a phone number then ?
>
> How could I or anybody else casue you "grief"?
>
> The army doesn't care about anybody's usenet posting, off-duty.
No, they don't.
But when people make up lies and then call them in it causes soldiers
grief.
>
> Do you think anybody believes you?
Stay with your denial, I can't help you any more.
tankfixer
You know Vince, your cute little insults are so endearing.
I'll miss them after the chosen one is anointed this winter.
> I guess you love law breakers as long as they are loyal bushies
> >> No outrage at their immorality and unlawful behavior?
> >>
> >
> > Never said that.
> >
> >> Oh thats right they are loyal bushies so above any criticism
> >
> >
> > So what should I do, stomp my feet on USENET about it ?
> >
> No you should say Bush and his party are a shameful bunch of lawbreaking
> creeps
I'd ask why you think both should be included but I'm sure I'll just get
more cute insults and little fact.
tankfixer
says...
Vincent Brannigan
1)Its not an insult
2)Its a fact that The bush administration has stalled and stonewalled
any investigation
>> I guess you love law breakers as long as they are loyal bushies
>>>> No outrage at their immorality and unlawful behavior?
>>>>
>>> Never said that.
>>>
>>>> Oh thats right they are loyal bushies so above any criticism
>>>
>>> So what should I do, stomp my feet on USENET about it ?
>>>
>> No you should say Bush and his party are a shameful bunch of lawbreaking
>> creeps
>
> I'd ask why you think both should be included but I'm sure I'll just get
> more cute insults and little fact.
no insult
The GOP has cooperate in the stall and cover up in every possible way
Vince
Vincent Brannigan
>> Don't think that will happen. Remember last year Tanky was arguing for
>> Scooter Libby's innocence right to the bitter end and then beyond?
>
> Folks decided he was guilty and then held the trial.
>
>
>
Exactly which "folks" ?
Vince
tankfixer
You use of the diminutive "bushie"
> 2)Its a fact that The bush administration has stalled and stonewalled
> any investigation
And we know thats NEVER happened before
>
>
> >> I guess you love law breakers as long as they are loyal bushies
> >>>> No outrage at their immorality and unlawful behavior?
> >>>>
> >>> Never said that.
> >>>
> >>>> Oh thats right they are loyal bushies so above any criticism
> >>>
> >>> So what should I do, stomp my feet on USENET about it ?
> >>>
> >> No you should say Bush and his party are a shameful bunch of lawbreaking
> >> creeps
> >
> > I'd ask why you think both should be included but I'm sure I'll just get
> > more cute insults and little fact.
>
> no insult
>
> The GOP has cooperate in the stall and cover up in every possible way
--
tankfixer
Jack Linthicum
> In article <t9Wok.787$mP.201@trnddc03>, fire...@firelaw.us says...
And one Chicago lawyer?
Vincent Brannigan
I did not use it about you
It was invented by the bushies themselves
>
>> 2)Its a fact that The bush administration has stalled and
>> stonewalled any investigation
>
> And we know thats NEVER happened before
>
So they join the ranks of other protectors of wrongdoing
>
>
>>
>>>> I guess you love law breakers as long as they are loyal bushies
>>>>
>>>>>> No outrage at their immorality and unlawful behavior?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Never said that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh thats right they are loyal bushies so above any
>>>>>> criticism
>>>>> So what should I do, stomp my feet on USENET about it ?
>>>>>
>>>> No you should say Bush and his party are a shameful bunch of
>>>> lawbreaking creeps
>>> I'd ask why you think both should be included but I'm sure I'll
>>> just get more cute insults and little fact.
>> no insult
>>
>> The GOP has cooperated in the stall and cover up in every possible
>> way
My point stands
Vince
Vincent Brannigan
> In article <t9Wok.787$mP.201@trnddc03>, fir...@firelaw.us says...
>> tankfixer wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't think that will happen. Remember last year Tanky was
>>>> arguing for Scooter Libby's innocence right to the bitter end
>>>> and then beyond?
>>>
>>> Folks decided he was guilty and then held the trial.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Exactly which "folks" ?
>
> The all knowing "media"
>
The trial was in federal court
before a jury
you know what a jury is, someone the Bushies cant buy off
Vince
Jeffrey Hamilton
'reference' to her. Go with _your_instinct's, tankfixer.
cheers....Jeff
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.230d56ed5...@nntp.earthlink.net...
La N
"Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:KY%ok.10153$Wm....@read2.cgocable.net...
> nilita has I believe, JA, in her killfile, she may well not see _his_
> 'reference' to her. Go with _your_instinct's, tankfixer.
>
> cheers....Jeff
>
>
JA is *spit* indeed in my killfile, and I haven't even read most of the
messages in this thread. Am I to assume that JA is questioning that Tanky
isn't bona fide? Well, he is the real deal, and I respect him as a member
of the U.S. armed forces. I actually quite like the guy - TankFixer, know
him IRL. It's just his politics that suck at times ... :)
- nilita
tankfixer
says...
<grin>
all our politics suck at times ...;')
tankfixer
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <t9Wok.787$mP.201@trnddc03>, fir...@firelaw.us says...
> >> tankfixer wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Don't think that will happen. Remember last year Tanky was
> >>>> arguing for Scooter Libby's innocence right to the bitter end
> >>>> and then beyond?
> >>>
> >>> Folks decided he was guilty and then held the trial.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Exactly which "folks" ?
> >
> > The all knowing "media"
> >
>
> The trial was in federal court
> before a jury
>
> you know what a jury is, someone the Bushies cant buy off
>
And they convicted him of outing a CIA desk jockey ?
Nope.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <35Yok.823$ZV1.363@trnddc07>, fire...@firelaw.us says...
>
>
>
> > tankfixer wrote:
> > > In article <t9Wok.787$mP.201@trnddc03>, fire...@firelaw.us says...
> > >> tankfixer wrote:
>
> > >>>> Don't think that will happen. Remember last year Tanky was
> > >>>> arguing for Scooter Libby's innocence right to the bitter end
> > >>>> and then beyond?
>
> > >>> Folks decided he was guilty and then held the trial.
>
> > >> Exactly which "folks" ?
>
> > > The all knowing "media"
>
> > The trial was in federal court
> > before a jury
>
> > you know what a jury is, someone the Bushies cant buy off
>
> And they convicted him of outing a CIA desk jockey ?
> Nope.
>
> --
>
> War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
> The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
> feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
>
> The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
> nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
> is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
> made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.
>
> John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.
You know that thing he wasn't convicted of? Well, he can't be pardoned
for it because that removes any immunity from self-incrimination.
John Briggs
> In article <35Yok.823$ZV1.363@trnddc07>, fir...@firelaw.us says...
>> tankfixer wrote:
>>> In article <t9Wok.787$mP.201@trnddc03>, fir...@firelaw.us says...
>>>> tankfixer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Don't think that will happen. Remember last year Tanky was
>>>>>> arguing for Scooter Libby's innocence right to the bitter end
>>>>>> and then beyond?
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks decided he was guilty and then held the trial.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly which "folks" ?
>>>
>>> The all knowing "media"
>>>
>>
>> The trial was in federal court
>> before a jury
>>
>> you know what a jury is, someone the Bushies cant buy off
>
> And they convicted him of outing a CIA desk jockey ?
> Nope.
He was convicted of making false statements to the FBI, perjury (repeating
those false statements to the Grand Jury) and obstruction of justice -
making those false statements in order to prevent the Grand Jury from
establishing who actually did leak Valerie Plame's identity.
And the whole point of the fuss was that she was not normally a "desk
jockey".
--
John Briggs
Paul J. Adam
<nilita20...@yahoo.com> writes
>JA is *spit* indeed in my killfile, and I haven't even read most of the
>messages in this thread. Am I to assume that JA is questioning that Tanky
>isn't bona fide? Well, he is the real deal, and I respect him as a member
>of the U.S. armed forces. I actually quite like the guy - TankFixer, know
>him IRL. It's just his politics that suck at times ... :)
Concur - there's solid evidence he's not walting[1], and he knows his
shit backwards on his specialist subjects.
He's also an okay guy - agree with him on some things, disagree on
others, but it doesn't turn nasty.
<http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts>
[1] 'Walt' - Walter Mitty - wannabe, bluffer, nuisance, cnut. It comes
from 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty', written by humorist James
Thurber and published in The New Yorker in 1941. A walt is an individual
who believes, or wishes others to believe, that he or she be something
he be not. They are often found bidding on 'Genuine SAS' KFS and other
items on eBay and usually act the Internet Tough Guy. Outing Walts is
the official sport of ARRSE.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
tankfixer
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, jackli...@earthlink.net says...
> On Aug 14, 4:19 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
> > In article <35Yok.823$ZV1.363@trnddc07>, fire...@firelaw.us says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > tankfixer wrote:
> > > > In article <t9Wok.787$mP.201@trnddc03>, fire...@firelaw.us says...
> > > >> tankfixer wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> Don't think that will happen. Remember last year Tanky was
> > > >>>> arguing for Scooter Libby's innocence right to the bitter end
> > > >>>> and then beyond?
> >
> > > >>> Folks decided he was guilty and then held the trial.
> >
> > > >> Exactly which "folks" ?
> >
> > > > The all knowing "media"
> >
> > > The trial was in federal court
> > > before a jury
> >
> > > you know what a jury is, someone the Bushies cant buy off
> >
> > And they convicted him of outing a CIA desk jockey ?
> > Nope.
> >
> You know that thing he wasn't convicted of? Well, he can't be pardoned
> for it because that removes any immunity from self-incrimination.
Why didn't they charge him with Plame's outing ?
tankfixer
@ntlworld.com says...
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <35Yok.823$ZV1.363@trnddc07>, fir...@firelaw.us says...
> >> tankfixer wrote:
> >>> In article <t9Wok.787$mP.201@trnddc03>, fir...@firelaw.us says...
> >>>> tankfixer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Don't think that will happen. Remember last year Tanky was
> >>>>>> arguing for Scooter Libby's innocence right to the bitter end
> >>>>>> and then beyond?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Folks decided he was guilty and then held the trial.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Exactly which "folks" ?
> >>>
> >>> The all knowing "media"
> >>>
> >>
> >> The trial was in federal court
> >> before a jury
> >>
> >> you know what a jury is, someone the Bushies cant buy off
> >
> > And they convicted him of outing a CIA desk jockey ?
> > Nope.
>
> He was convicted of making false statements to the FBI, perjury (repeating
> those false statements to the Grand Jury) and obstruction of justice -
> making those false statements in order to prevent the Grand Jury from
> establishing who actually did leak Valerie Plame's identity.
> And the whole point of the fuss was that she was not normally a "desk
> jockey".
It would appear she was.
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <5uednW1kRKNL7T7V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.230d096f4...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > No matter, if you wish to assume things I can't stop you.
>> >>
>> >> A number of people have have expressed doubts about you, hence the
>> >> "we".
>> >
>>
>> > Really ?
>> > Who.
>> > Go on, don't be bashful, name them.
>>
>> LaN, Ray Ohara, just from immediate memory.
>
> LaN knows better than to say such a thing.
> I'd hope she steps up to the plate here and say so.
>
> Ray Ohare is hardly an endorsement for any cause.
<snip evasions>
Hmm, nothing left ;-))
Oh well, you have dropped your claim to having been in the army, or any
service.
I'm bored.
HD is great for watching the Olympics - big improvement over SD - I'm off.
J A
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:240pk.7091$%b7.6573@edtnps82...
>
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> news:KY%ok.10153$Wm....@read2.cgocable.net...
>> nilita has I believe, JA, in her killfile, she may well not see _his_
>> 'reference' to her. Go with _your_instinct's, tankfixer.
>>
>> cheers....Jeff
>>
>>
>
> JA is *spit* indeed in my killfile,
The degenerate liar infested hag doesn't like me becasue I called her on a
lie she tried to float, during the primary races involving Clinton''s wife
and Obama.
Degenerate liars hate being revealed.
Anything she has to say is suspect, and is almost always inane.
tankfixer
says...
>
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:240pk.7091$%b7.6573@edtnps82...
> >
> > "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> > news:KY%ok.10153$Wm....@read2.cgocable.net...
> >> nilita has I believe, JA, in her killfile, she may well not see _his_
> >> 'reference' to her. Go with _your_instinct's, tankfixer.
> >>
> >> cheers....Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >
> > JA is *spit* indeed in my killfile,
>
> The degenerate liar infested hag doesn't like me becasue I called her on a
> lie she tried to float, during the primary races involving Clinton''s wife
> and Obama.
>
> Degenerate liars hate being revealed.
> Anything she has to say is suspect, and is almost always inane.
what does that make you ?
You were the one wanting to use her word to say I'm not a soldier.
>
> and I haven't even read most of the
> > messages in this thread. Am I to assume that JA is questioning that Tanky
> > isn't bona fide? Well, he is the real deal, and I respect him as a member
> > of the U.S. armed forces. I actually quite like the guy - TankFixer,
> > know him IRL. It's just his politics that suck at times ... :)
tankfixer
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.230d56ed5...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <5uednW1kRKNL7T7V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.230d096f4...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No matter, if you wish to assume things I can't stop you.
> >> >>
> >> >> A number of people have have expressed doubts about you, hence the
> >> >> "we".
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Really ?
> >> > Who.
> >> > Go on, don't be bashful, name them.
> >>
> >> LaN, Ray Ohara, just from immediate memory.
> >
> > LaN knows better than to say such a thing.
> > I'd hope she steps up to the plate here and say so.
> >
> > Ray Ohare is hardly an endorsement for any cause.
>
> <snip evasions>
>
> Hmm, nothing left ;-))
Both your sources impeached you run and hide.
>
> Oh well, you have dropped your claim to having been in the army, or any
> service.
I did ?
You should enrole in reading classes then.
>
> I'm bored.
One off your many failings.
>
> HD is great for watching the Olympics - big improvement over SD - I'm off.
we know you are off.
John Briggs
Why? He was convicted of doing the shielding.
>> And the whole point of the fuss was that she was not normally a "desk
>> jockey".
>
> It would appear she was.
In what sense? (Note use of "normally".)
--
John Briggs