CLASSIC Example Of A Benny Holmes *Swamp Post* !!!
timstter
Say, Ben Holmes has provided some REMARKABLE examples of posting
tediousness here over the years and one of his very FAVOURITE
techniques to use is his patented *SWAMP POST* technique.
This involves Holmes responding to a fairly brief response by another
poster but instead of responding in kind, he will break up what the
other person has posted and might post four or five or even more pars
in response to a SINGLE line or two from the original poster.
Then, when the other poster responds in kind, Holmes will AGAIN employ
the same method, making a simple thread as COMPLEX as he possibly can
by expanding and expanding it, in order to *drag the other poster into
the swamp* like a croc in the Florida everglades, metaphorically
speaking.
The reasoning behind such a style of posting seems to either lie in
Holmes's deluded belief in his own literary genius, his innate
bullying nature, hardwired into him or (most likely) that a SWAMP POST
makes it THAT MUCH EASIER to run away without people noticing if
things get sticky! We see this in action in Post # 70 of the Yellow
Pants thread I recently reposted where Holmes ran away, but you were
required to read RIGHT THROUGH to the VERY END of Post # 70 to realise
this.
In Google Groups, a successful SWAMP POST is often characterised by
the words *read more >>* appearing at the end of an already very
lengthy discourse and Ben Holmes, of course, has MANY of these to his
credit.
A CLASSIC example of a Holmes SWAMP POST in development has appeared
today, in fact, as Benny conducts his absurd non-argument about what
Posner/Lane did/didn't say with Bill Clarke. Bill, being a reasonable
fella, posted a fairly concise, two paragraph response to Holmes that
consisted of:
QUOTE ON:
Or it could be that I’m just tired of your Anthony Marsh bullshit.
You refuse
to answer any of my questions. You refuse to accept responsibility for
omitting
the word battalion and you refuse to acknowledge how this omission
changed the
point of the report. You’ve been crying liar from the beginning but
haven’t
shown just how I lied. Apparently you don’t know the difference
between combat
troops and support troops and you don’t know the organization of a
battalion and
worse you can’t learn. In sum Holmes I find you to be a stupid son of
a bitch
and you have become boring.
I have posted a message to a Yahoo Vietnam group that is by invitation
only. We
did that so we didn’t have to listen to stupid fuckers like you. You
will be
able to read the reply on the website but you won’t be able to post.
Over at
alt.war.vietnam you can post away, it is an open group but is plagued
by some
nuts. There remain there some good men however. Post away.
Bill Clarke
QUOTE OFF
Now let's examine Holmes's response and marvel at a SWAMP POST in the
making! To do that I'm not going to address any of the arrant nonsense
that Swamp Poster Holmes has trotted out, that can be left to the
original thread where he posted his gibberish, but simply count HOW
MANY RESPONSES Holmes puts up to each line or idea of what Bill wrote.
I will put a number in CAPITALS after each response and also note any
other interesting characteristics of a *Benny Holmes Swamp Post*. I
will also keep a running tally of the number of total responses Holmes
makes in brackets, so we can check at the end just what a verbose
blowhard this self-righteous bore is. OK, here we go:
>Or it could be that I’m just tired of your Anthony Marsh bullshit. You refuse
>to answer any of my questions.
Ask away, Bill.
ONE. (1).
But each time you ask a *stupid* question, I'll have one for you to
answer too.
TWO. (2).
Let's see how long you stick around to answer questions. In fact, I
release just
one question a day - and I've not seen you answer even *ONE* of them.
THREE. (THANK GOD HE ONLY RELEASES ONE BLOWHARD QUESTION A DAY, LOL!).
(3).
The only one I recall refusing to answer was one that involved
*presuming* your
lie in order to answer it.
FOUR. (WHEW! FOR TWO LINES?!!) (4).
Strangely enough, you've STILL refused to point out where Posner was
referring
to support troops, or REMF's... (or, for that matter, troops on R&R)
FIVE!! (5).
Does cowardice prevent you? Or the fact that the *truth* means that
you can't?
SIX! SIX?!!! CLASSIC HOLMES IN ACTION! PLUS INTRODUCE AD HOMINEN!!
(6).
>You refuse to accept responsibility for omitting
>the word battalion
You're lying Bill. I've already responded to this charge, and now
you're merely
repeating it.
ONE. (7).
This will be the THIRD time I've pointed out that I did not quote the
statement
accurately to prevent you from locating exactly *who* said it.
TWO. (8).
The word you focused on, however, WAS accurately given... "some".
THREE. (9).
Strangely, you've been quite silent on that issue ever since...
FOUR! FOUR SEPARATE RESPONSES FOR TEN (COUNT 'EM) WORDS! CLASSIC
HOLMES!! (10).
>and you refuse to acknowledge how this omission changed the
>point of the report.
Nah... doesn't change it at all, ACCORDING TO *YOU*.
ONE. (11).
The relevant word for you was "some". You were quite specific about
that, Bill.
TWO. (12).
Nor would *any* of this have come up if Mark Lane had written it...
you can't
point to a SINGLE example of your defense of a Mark Lane statement.
THREE. THROW IN A BIT OF CASUAL LYING. (13).
In fact, the "battalion" issue has merely been the springboard for
your lies
about what Posner actually said. It's quite clear that he was
*SPECIFICALLY*
excluding the very troops that *you* are trying so desperately to have
him speak
of...
FOUR. MORE AD HOMINEN. (14).
Why is that, Bill? Do you wish to absolve Posner for writing
"dishonest shit"?
FIVE. (15).
Why wouldn't you want to do the same for Mark Lane?
SIX! THAT IS A TOTAL OF TEN RESPONSES TO ONE LINE THAT BILL CLARKE
WROTE! ONE FUCKING LINE!! WE ARE SEEING CLASSIC HOLMES IN ACTION
HERE!!! PLUS AD HOM COUNT AT AT LEAST TWO AND RISING!!! (16).
>You’ve been crying liar from the beginning but haven’t
>shown just how I lied.
Simply point out where Posner referenced REMF's or support troops.
ONE. (17).
You can't do it... it's a lie.
TWO. THROW IN A BIT MORE AD HOMINEN. CALL YOUR OPPONENT A LIAR. IGNORE
FACT THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BLATANTLY LIED YOURSELF. (18).
Another excellent lie would undoubtedly be whatever post you made on a
Vietnam
war forum... since you've made it clear that you will AVOID the topic
of what
THREE. MORE AD HOM. (19).
you're claiming Posner wrote...
MISCOUNT. HOLMES STUFFED THE SPACING ON HIS SWAMP POST. STILL @ THREE.
(19).
>Apparently you don’t know the difference between combat
>troops and support troops
Ah! This is PRECISELY the point... I *do* know the difference, and
you're
attempting to claim that referencing combat troops means a reference
to support
troops.
ONE. (20).
They *are* different, Bill.
TWO. (21).
Can you admit this? Would you have the balls to post your assertion
above, and
this response in your closed forum?
THREE. MORE AD HOM. IMPLY OTHER POSTER IS A COWARD. (22).
>and you don’t know the organization of a battalion and
>worse you can’t learn. In sum Holmes I find you to be a stupid son of a bitch
>and you have become boring.
Presumably, this means that you're about to run away. I've seen the
same signs
dozens of times before... most recently with "Caeruleo".
ONE. (NO WONDER HE FINDS HOLMES A BORE AFTER THIS DISMAL EFFORT. WHO
WOULDN'T?) (23).
That's okay... you've told too many lies to hide now... By the way,
ever find
out what Chuck wrote?
TWO. (LOOKS LIKE HE IS FINALLY RUNNING OUT OF STEAM...). (24).
>I have posted a message to a Yahoo Vietnam group that is by invitation only. We
>did that so we didn’t have to listen to stupid fuckers like you.
You mean people like me that know that "support troops" and "REMF's"
aren't the
same as "combat troops", and "frontline U.S. troop battalions"?
ONE. (25).
I think you have a low opinion of the Yahoo Vietnam group...
TWO. (26).
>You will be
>able to read the reply on the website but you won’t be able to post. Over at
>alt.war.vietnam you can post away, it is an open group but is plagued by some
>nuts. There remain there some good men however. Post away.
As I've already pointed out, what you said you were going to post is a
lie.
ONE. MORE AD HOM. (27).
And it's not surprising that you'd pick a forum where you can't be
contradicted.
TWO. (28).
Cowards favor such tactics...
THREE. (AND THROW IN A FINAL BIT OF AD HOMINEN FOR GOOD MEASURE, ALL
THE WHILE BEING PREPARED TO WHINGE ABOUT AD HOMINEN IN THE SAME
THREAD). (29).
>Bill Clarke
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Well, there we have it, folks! Twenty nine! Twenty nine SEPARATE
responses by Ben Holmes to an original TWO PARAGRAPH response by the
other poster, Bill Clarke. TWENTY NINE, LOL!
As you can see, should the other poster respond, Holmes then responds
in kind, etc etc, until the thread becomes SO LONG and convoluted that
everyone loses interest. And Holmes scuttles away.
The fellow is quite simply a damn bore and BLOWHARD with no interest
in anything apart from blowing his own trumpet. Avoid where possible.
Next Time In This Series: How To Successfully Respond To A Swamp
Poster. :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
<snip>
hey shithead whenb will you learn how to copy and paste, CORRECTLY?
You're verging on even me dumping you into the retard pit, aka
killfile.
You lone nut morons haven't got anything left... never had anything in
the first place -- so tell us, why a troll from Australia has so much
interest in the JFK assassination, you running from the law or
something? Need friends stateside?
Bill Clarke
timstter says...
>You refuse
>to answer any of my questions. You refuse to accept responsibility for
>omitting
>the word battalion and you refuse to acknowledge how this omission
>changed the
>haven=92t
>shown just how I lied. Apparently you don=92t know the difference
>between combat
>troops and support troops and you don=92t know the organization of a
>battalion and
>worse you can=92t learn. In sum Holmes I find you to be a stupid son of
>a bitch
>and you have become boring.
>
>I have posted a message to a Yahoo Vietnam group that is by invitation
>only. We
>will be
>able to read the reply on the website but you won=92t be able to post.
>Over at
>alt.war.vietnam you can post away, it is an open group but is plagued
>by some
>nuts. There remain there some good men however. Post away.
>
>Bill Clarke
>
>QUOTE OFF
>
>Now let's examine Holmes's response and marvel at a SWAMP POST in the
>making! To do that I'm not going to address any of the arrant nonsense
>that Swamp Poster Holmes has trotted out, that can be left to the
>original thread where he posted his gibberish, but simply count HOW
>MANY RESPONSES Holmes puts up to each line or idea of what Bill wrote.
>I will put a number in CAPITALS after each response and also note any
>other interesting characteristics of a *Benny Holmes Swamp Post*. I
>will also keep a running tally of the number of total responses Holmes
>makes in brackets, so we can check at the end just what a verbose
>blowhard this self-righteous bore is. OK, here we go:
>
>>shown just how I lied.
>
>Simply point out where Posner referenced REMF's or support troops.
>ONE. (17).
>
>You can't do it... it's a lie.
>TWO. THROW IN A BIT MORE AD HOMINEN. CALL YOUR OPPONENT A LIAR. IGNORE
>FACT THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BLATANTLY LIED YOURSELF. (18).
>
>Another excellent lie would undoubtedly be whatever post you made on a
>Vietnam
>war forum... since you've made it clear that you will AVOID the topic
>of what
>THREE. MORE AD HOM. (19).
>
>you're claiming Posner wrote...
>MISCOUNT. HOLMES STUFFED THE SPACING ON HIS SWAMP POST. STILL @ THREE.
>(19).
>
>>troops and support troops
>
>Ah! This is PRECISELY the point... I *do* know the difference, and
>you're
>attempting to claim that referencing combat troops means a reference
>to support
>troops.
>ONE. (20).
>
>They *are* different, Bill.
>TWO. (21).
>
>Can you admit this? Would you have the balls to post your assertion
>above, and
>this response in your closed forum?
>THREE. MORE AD HOM. IMPLY OTHER POSTER IS A COWARD. (22).
>
>>worse you can=92t learn. In sum Holmes I find you to be a stupid son of a=
> bitch
>>and you have become boring.
>
>Presumably, this means that you're about to run away. I've seen the
>same signs
>dozens of times before... most recently with "Caeruleo".
>ONE. (NO WONDER HE FINDS HOLMES A BORE AFTER THIS DISMAL EFFORT. WHO
>WOULDN'T?) (23).
>
>That's okay... you've told too many lies to hide now... By the way,
>ever find
>out what Chuck wrote?
>TWO. (LOOKS LIKE HE IS FINALLY RUNNING OUT OF STEAM...). (24).
>
>y. We
>>did that so we didn=92t have to listen to stupid fuckers like you.
>
>You mean people like me that know that "support troops" and "REMF's"
>aren't the
>same as "combat troops", and "frontline U.S. troop battalions"?
>ONE. (25).
>
>I think you have a low opinion of the Yahoo Vietnam group...
>TWO. (26).
>
>>You will be
>r at
>>alt.war.vietnam you can post away, it is an open group but is plagued by s=
>ome
>>nuts. There remain there some good men however. Post away.
>
>As I've already pointed out, what you said you were going to post is a
>lie.
>ONE. MORE AD HOM. (27).
>
>And it's not surprising that you'd pick a forum where you can't be
>contradicted.
>TWO. (28).
>
>Cowards favor such tactics...
>THREE. (AND THROW IN A FINAL BIT OF AD HOMINEN FOR GOOD MEASURE, ALL
>THE WHILE BEING PREPARED TO WHINGE ABOUT AD HOMINEN IN THE SAME
>THREAD). (29).
>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>responses by Ben Holmes to an original TWO PARAGRAPH response by the
>other poster, Bill Clarke. TWENTY NINE, LOL!
>
>As you can see, should the other poster respond, Holmes then responds
>in kind, etc etc, until the thread becomes SO LONG and convoluted that
>everyone loses interest. And Holmes scuttles away.
>
>The fellow is quite simply a damn bore and BLOWHARD with no interest
>in anything apart from blowing his own trumpet. Avoid where possible.
>
>Next Time In This Series: How To Successfully Respond To A Swamp
>Poster. :-)
>
>Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
A good one. Laughing my ass off.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
>
>In article <fadd0049-95df-4b76...@p37g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,
>timstter says...
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Say, Ben Holmes has provided some REMARKABLE examples of posting
>>tediousness here over the years and one of his very FAVOURITE
>>techniques to use is his patented *SWAMP POST* technique.
>>
>>This involves Holmes responding to a fairly brief response by another
>>poster but instead of responding in kind, he will break up what the
>>other person has posted and might post four or five or even more pars
>>in response to a SINGLE line or two from the original poster.
You're lying, of course...
Why not marvel at the number of thoughts expressed in those two paragraphs?
It's amusing that you think that people should be able to express whatever they
want without contradiction.
Of course, what you *won't* do is retract the lie you told about Posner's
writing.
Or mention it in a closed group where you can't be contradicted... rather
cowardly, don't you think?
Bill Clarke
Once again Posner didn’t write it.
Once again I haven’t lied about a damn thing. You on the other hand…..
When I pulled up the group this morning I see Ben Holmes name 6 times out of 20
post. Are you trying to SWAMP the entire news group? Snicker!
Bill Clarke
timstter
> In article <fadd0049-95df-4b76-9acb-909a4c1b1...@p37g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,
Thanks Bill. Always thought Holmes was a REMF, skulking behind his
killfilter like that!
Bill Clarke
timstter says...
>
>On Sep 2, 11:56=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <fadd0049-95df-4b76-9acb-909a4c1b1...@p37g2000prp.googlegroups=
>> >You refuse
>> >to answer any of my questions. You refuse to accept responsibility for
>> >omitting
>> >the word battalion and you refuse to acknowledge how this omission
>> >changed the
>> >haven=3D92t
>> >shown just how I lied. =A0Apparently you don=3D92t know the difference
>> >between combat
>> >troops and support troops and you don=3D92t know the organization of a
>> >battalion and
>> >worse you can=3D92t learn. =A0In sum Holmes I find you to be a stupid so=
>n of
>> >a bitch
>> >and you have become boring.
>>
>> >I have posted a message to a Yahoo Vietnam group that is by invitation
>> >did that so we didn=3D92t have to listen to stupid fuckers like you. =A0=
>You
>> >will be
>> >able to read the reply on the website but you won=3D92t be able to post.
>> >Over at
>> >alt.war.vietnam you can post away, it is an open group but is plagued
>> >by some
>>
>> >Bill Clarke
>>
>> >QUOTE OFF
>>
>> >Now let's examine Holmes's response and marvel at a SWAMP POST in the
>> >making! To do that I'm not going to address any of the arrant nonsense
>> >that Swamp Poster Holmes has trotted out, that can be left to the
>> >original thread where he posted his gibberish, but simply count HOW
>> >MANY RESPONSES Holmes puts up to each line or idea of what Bill wrote.
>> >I will put a number in CAPITALS after each response and also note any
>> >other interesting characteristics of a *Benny Holmes Swamp Post*. I
>> >will also keep a running tally of the number of total responses Holmes
>> >makes in brackets, so we can check at the end just what a verbose
>> >blowhard this self-righteous bore is. OK, here we go:
>>
>=A0You =3D
>> >>shown just how I lied.
>>
>> >Simply point out where Posner referenced REMF's or support troops.
>> >ONE. (17).
>>
>> >You can't do it... it's a lie.
>> >TWO. THROW IN A BIT MORE AD HOMINEN. CALL YOUR OPPONENT A LIAR. IGNORE
>> >FACT THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY BLATANTLY LIED YOURSELF. (18).
>>
>> >Another excellent lie would undoubtedly be whatever post you made on a
>> >Vietnam
>> >war forum... since you've made it clear that you will AVOID the topic
>> >of what
>> >THREE. MORE AD HOM. (19).
>>
>> >you're claiming Posner wrote...
>> >MISCOUNT. HOLMES STUFFED THE SPACING ON HIS SWAMP POST. STILL @ THREE.
>> >(19).
>>
>> >>troops and support troops
>>
>> >Ah! This is PRECISELY the point... I *do* know the difference, and
>> >you're
>> >attempting to claim that referencing combat troops means a reference
>> >to support
>> >troops.
>> >ONE. (20).
>>
>> >They *are* different, Bill.
>> >TWO. (21).
>>
>> >Can you admit this? Would you have the balls to post your assertion
>> >above, and
>> >this response in your closed forum?
>> >THREE. MORE AD HOM. IMPLY OTHER POSTER IS A COWARD. (22).
>>
>> >>worse you can=3D92t learn. =A0In sum Holmes I find you to be a stupid s=
>on of a=3D
>> > bitch
>> >>and you have become boring.
>>
>> >Presumably, this means that you're about to run away. I've seen the
>> >same signs
>> >dozens of times before... most recently with "Caeruleo".
>> >ONE. (NO WONDER HE FINDS HOLMES A BORE AFTER THIS DISMAL EFFORT. WHO
>> >WOULDN'T?) (23).
>>
>> >That's okay... you've told too many lies to hide now... By the way,
>> >ever find
>> >out what Chuck wrote?
>> >TWO. (LOOKS LIKE HE IS FINALLY RUNNING OUT OF STEAM...). (24).
>>
>onl=3D
>> >y. =A0We
>> >>did that so we didn=3D92t have to listen to stupid fuckers like you.
>>
>> >You mean people like me that know that "support troops" and "REMF's"
>> >aren't the
>> >same as "combat troops", and "frontline U.S. troop battalions"?
>> >ONE. (25).
>>
>> >I think you have a low opinion of the Yahoo Vietnam group...
>> >TWO. (26).
>>
>> >>You will be
>. Ove=3D
>> >r at
>> >>alt.war.vietnam you can post away, it is an open group but is plagued b=
>y s=3D
>> >ome
>> >>nuts. =A0There remain there some good men however. =A0Post away.
>>
>> Bill Clarke
>
>Thanks Bill. Always thought Holmes was a REMF, skulking behind his
>killfilter like that!
>
>Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
With his lack of understanding of how a combat battalion is organized and the
interaction of combat and support troops I really have my doubts about Holmes
being an E-6. He is either real dumb or this is just part of his swamp
strategy. He is such a liar it is difficult to tell. Neither one is
impressive.
I’ve asked Holmes how the cooks are going to fix breakfast for the troops if
they (cooks) are stuck way back in Da Nang. I can’t wait for his funny answer.
Bill Clarke
timstter
> In article <e19a9c25-af23-45c2-8514-78afcb1e1...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Hi Bill,
Holmes always likes to trot out his credentials. More likely he was
the Undesirable Discharge type like his Marxist hero, Oswald.
Holmes is always besmirching Ed Dolan on this board, yet if you go and
Google Dolan and USMC you find that Ed Dolan WAS a respected member of
the USMC and attained high rank. He is still listed on websites of
retired USMC personnel and there is no need to doubt his claims that
he is still welcome at their functions.
This flies in the face of EVERYTHING Holmes has written about Dolan on
this board, but, well, we are dealing with an inveterate REMF liar in
the person of Holmes, LOL!
Ben Holmes
Yes Bill, he did. The absence of quote marks might have tipped you off.
>Once again I haven’t lied about a damn thing.
You lied about not stating that Posner wrote about REMF's, Bill. I QUOTED you
doing so...
>You on the other hand…..
Quote it, Bill.
>When I pulled up the group this morning I see Ben Holmes name 6 times out of 20
>post. Are you trying to SWAMP the entire news group? Snicker!
>
>Bill Clarke
"Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to
admitting that you have lost the argument."
Ben Holmes
You're lying again...
>and the
>interaction of combat and support troops I really have my doubts about Holmes
>being an E-6. He is either real dumb or this is just part of his swamp
>strategy. He is such a liar it is difficult to tell. Neither one is
>impressive.
>
>I’ve asked Holmes how the cooks are going to fix breakfast for the troops if
>they (cooks) are stuck way back in Da Nang. I can’t wait for his funny answer.
>Bill Clarke
REMF's are the topic, Bill... you really *must* keep up.
timstter
> In article <j3qn9s01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
> >In article <fadd0049-95df-4b76-9acb-909a4c1b1...@p37g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,
> >timstter says...
>
> >>Hi All,
>
> >>Say, Ben Holmes has provided some REMARKABLE examples of posting
> >>tediousness here over the years and one of his very FAVOURITE
> >>techniques to use is his patented *SWAMP POST* technique.
>
> >>This involves Holmes responding to a fairly brief response by another
> >>poster but instead of responding in kind, he will break up what the
> >>other person has posted and might post four or five or even more pars
> >>in response to a SINGLE line or two from the original poster.
>
> You're lying, of course...
>
If I'm lying, why did you make TWENTY NINE separate responses to a TWO
PARA email?!!
The one lying is YOU, Ben.
Because the subject at hand is what a verbose and overbearing blowhard
you are, Benny.
> It's amusing that you think that people should be able to express whatever they
> want without contradiction.
>
Huh? Where did I ever say that? I just pointed how you attempt to
close down debate by sandbagging the other party.
You're nothing but a lying fraudster!
> ...
>
> read more »
You've been exposed as the blowhard you are, Benny!
Informative Regards,
Bill Clarke
You have proved your ignorance about this numerous times here in your post. You
have furnished all the proof needed.
>>and the
>>interaction of combat and support troops I really have my doubts about Holmes
>>being an E-6. He is either real dumb or this is just part of his swamp
>>strategy. He is such a liar it is difficult to tell. Neither one is
>>impressive.
>>
>>I’ve asked Holmes how the cooks are going to fix breakfast for the troops if
>>they (cooks) are stuck way back in Da Nang. I can’t wait for his funny answer.
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>REMF's are the topic, Bill... you really *must* keep up.
Cooks are REMFs (you didn’t know that?). That makes them on topic. So answer
the question asshole. Never thought about that did you? I believe you are the
one falling behind here Holmes.
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
Since the topic is what *Posner* referred to, you don't even have the evidence
you claim to have.
>>>and the
>>>interaction of combat and support troops I really have my doubts about Holmes
>>>being an E-6. He is either real dumb or this is just part of his swamp
>>>strategy. He is such a liar it is difficult to tell. Neither one is
>>>impressive.
>>>
>>>I�ve asked Holmes how the cooks are going to fix breakfast for the troops if
>>>they (cooks) are stuck way back in Da Nang. I can�t wait for his funny answer.
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>REMF's are the topic, Bill... you really *must* keep up.
>
>Cooks are REMFs (you didn�t know that?).
So you *DO* believe that REMF's are among the combat troops on the frontline!!!
LOL!!
>That makes them on topic. So answer
>the question asshole. Never thought about that did you? I believe you are the
>one falling behind here Holmes.
>
>Bill Clarke
You've been caught lying repeatedly Bill.
And my point has been ABUNDANTLY demonstrated...
Bill Clarke
He referred to battalions. I have posted all the information on a combat
battalion necessary to prove what Posner referred to. I can't help it if you
are too stupid to catch on.
>>>>and the
>>>>interaction of combat and support troops I really have my doubts about Holmes
>>>>being an E-6. He is either real dumb or this is just part of his swamp
>>>>strategy. He is such a liar it is difficult to tell. Neither one is
>>>>impressive.
>>>>
>>>>I’ve asked Holmes how the cooks are going to fix breakfast for the troops if
>>>>they (cooks) are stuck way back in Da Nang. I can’t wait for his funny answer.
>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>REMF's are the topic, Bill... you really *must* keep up.
>>
>>Cooks are REMFs (you didn’t know that?).
>
>
>So you *DO* believe that REMF's are among the combat troops on the frontline!!!
>
>LOL!!
Can’t answer the question can you? Snicker. Come on Holmes. Show us what you
got. Answer the question about the REMF cooks. Cat got your tongue?
>>That makes them on topic. So answer
>>the question asshole. Never thought about that did you? I believe you are the
>>one falling behind here Holmes.
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>You've been caught lying repeatedly Bill.
>
>And my point has been ABUNDANTLY demonstrated...
You’ve yet to catch me in a lie. Just because you whine lie doesn’t make it
one. And I really don’t think you know what your point is anymore. Getting
confused Holmes? Feeling a little dizzy? Distracted by wondering how the hell
the REMF cooks back in Da Nang fixed breakfast for the combat troops?
Bill Clarke
Ben Holmes
What sort of battalions, Bill?
Posner WAS specific, he *DID* make it clear what he was speaking about...
>I have posted all the information on a combat
>battalion necessary to prove what Posner referred to. I can't help it if you
>are too stupid to catch on.
If I'm "too stupid to catch on", why have I caught on to the fact that you
refuse to tell the Vietnam war forum of your belief that REMF's are frontline
troops in a combat zone?
>>>>>and the
>>>>>interaction of combat and support troops I really have my doubts about Holmes
>>>>>being an E-6. He is either real dumb or this is just part of his swamp
>>>>>strategy. He is such a liar it is difficult to tell. Neither one is
>>>>>impressive.
>>>>>
>>>>>I’ve asked Holmes how the cooks are going to fix breakfast for the troops if
>>>>>they (cooks) are stuck way back in Da Nang. I can’t wait for his funny answer.
>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>REMF's are the topic, Bill... you really *must* keep up.
>>>
>>>Cooks are REMFs (you didn’t know that?).
>>
>>
>>So you *DO* believe that REMF's are among the combat troops on the frontline!!!
>>
>>LOL!!
>
>Can’t answer the question can you? Snicker. Come on Holmes. Show us what you
>got. Answer the question about the REMF cooks. Cat got your tongue?
Sorry Bill, I don't believe that REMF's are frontline troops in a combat zone.
Tell that to your closed Vietnam war forum...
>>>That makes them on topic. So answer
>>>the question asshole. Never thought about that did you? I believe you are the
>>>one falling behind here Holmes.
>>>
>>>Bill Clarke
>>
>>
>>You've been caught lying repeatedly Bill.
>>
>>And my point has been ABUNDANTLY demonstrated...
>
>You’ve yet to catch me in a lie.
Of course I have, Bill. You tried to claim that you'd never said that Posner
referred to REMF's, and I quoted you doing so.
It's now *PRESUMED* that you make that argument, as anyone reading above can
see.
Most current or former military would agree that it's a lie to label REMF's as
frontline troops in a combat zone as well...
>Just because you whine lie doesn’t make it one.
Yet you must agree too... since you carefully avoided these topics when you
posted to another forum.
>And I really don’t think you know what your point is anymore. Getting
>confused Holmes? Feeling a little dizzy? Distracted by wondering how the hell
>the REMF cooks back in Da Nang fixed breakfast for the combat troops?
>Bill Clarke
Too bad Mark Lane really didn't write this - the embarrassment you'd feel at
making such a strong defense of what was written after you labeled it "dishonest
shit" must be beyond description.
Bill Clarke
The paper calls it a frontline battalion. This is a misnomer since there was no
frontline in Vietnam. The proper word would have been combat battalions. But I
agree it really meant combat battalions.
>>I have posted all the information on a combat
>>battalion necessary to prove what Posner referred to. I can't help it if you
>>are too stupid to catch on.
>
>
>
>If I'm "too stupid to catch on", why have I caught on to the fact that you
>refuse to tell the Vietnam war forum of your belief that REMF's are frontline
>troops in a combat zone?
Because Marsh you twist my words, you fabricate to suite your needs here and you
are needy. I never said FEMFs were combat troops. I did say REMFs were in the
combat zone with the combat troops. I isn’t my fault that you are too ignorant
to know this. It isn’t my fault that you are too lazy to learn this. Do you
read?
>>>>>>and the
>>>>>>interaction of combat and support troops I really have my doubts about Holmes
>>>>>>being an E-6. He is either real dumb or this is just part of his swamp
>>>>>>strategy. He is such a liar it is difficult to tell. Neither one is
>>>>>>impressive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I’ve asked Holmes how the cooks are going to fix breakfast for the troops if
>>>>>>they (cooks) are stuck way back in Da Nang. I can’t wait for his funny answer.
>>>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>REMF's are the topic, Bill... you really *must* keep up.
>>>>
>>>>Cooks are REMFs (you didn’t know that?).
>>>
>>>
>>>So you *DO* believe that REMF's are among the combat troops on the frontline!!!
>>>
>>>LOL!!
>>
>>Can’t answer the question can you? Snicker. Come on Holmes. Show us what you
>>got. Answer the question about the REMF cooks. Cat got your tongue?
>
>
>Sorry Bill, I don't believe that REMF's are frontline troops in a combat zone.
I don’t believe they are combat troops either. I know they were in the combat
zone. Heads up dickhead. When my armored cav unit went out the gate at the
firebase we took with us one mechanic with tool box and one radio repairman for
each platoon. These men did not have a combat MOS. They were support troops
and they were with us every day. The REMFs still on the firebase took enemy
mortar rounds. I’d call that a combat zone. You find that frontline yet?
>Tell that to your closed Vietnam war forum...
>
>
>>>>That makes them on topic. So answer
>>>>the question asshole. Never thought about that did you? I believe you are the
>>>>one falling behind here Holmes.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Clarke
>>>
>>>
>>>You've been caught lying repeatedly Bill.
>>>
>>>And my point has been ABUNDANTLY demonstrated...
>>
>>You’ve yet to catch me in a lie.
>
>
>Of course I have, Bill. You tried to claim that you'd never said that Posner
>referred to REMF's, and I quoted you doing so.
>
>It's now *PRESUMED* that you make that argument, as anyone reading above can
>see.
>
>Most current or former military would agree that it's a lie to label REMF's as
>frontline troops in a combat zone as well...
You silly son of a bitch. You are about the only one I know that isn’t aware
that the support troops in Vietnam were in the combat zone.
>>Just because you whine lie doesn’t make it one.
>
>
>Yet you must agree too... since you carefully avoided these topics when you
>posted to another forum.
>
>
>
>>And I really don’t think you know what your point is anymore. Getting
>>confused Holmes? Feeling a little dizzy? Distracted by wondering how the hell
>>the REMF cooks back in Da Nang fixed breakfast for the combat troops?
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>Too bad Mark Lane really didn't write this - the embarrassment you'd feel at
>making such a strong defense of what was written after you labeled it "dishonest
>shit" must be beyond description.
>
>
I really haven’t lost any sleep over it. It really isn’t on my top shelf Benny.
Bill Clarke