Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
Michael P. Deignan
Col's
constant whining about Morse code, I figured it was appropriate....
--->
Doesn't the military have a policy against homosexuality? Lookie here:
(Retrieved from DejaNews) [Steve R: What's the current military policy
on this sort of activity? What would happen to a commissioned officer
like Lt. Maj. General Admiral Morgan if his C.O. were to find out?]
Re: 217 Golden Showers
Author: mark <mwmo...@nwpt.net>
Date: 1998/12/06
Forum: alt.personals.bi
Posted on: 1998/12/06
Message-ID: <3669f5d3...@news.npwt.net>
Organization: Varner Technologies, Inc.
References: <36677215...@soltec.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 23:24:38 -0600, FunGuy <g...@soltec.com> wrote:
>Anyone in Central Illinois/Western Indiana???
>male and/or female welcome
>
the emial does not seem to work
bi male central illinois here i love gs stuff giving or taking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Upon further digging on DejaNews (GOD! I just LOVE that service! The written
word, archived for all of eternity, is such a BITCH when it comes back to
bite you, as Lt. Major Admiral Morgan will soon find out...) I've uncovered
the following gems of wisdom from the Lt. Col.
--
Anyone remember the Lt. Col. when he first showed up? Yup. His recent change
of e-mail addresses to try and thwart Steve's auto-kill daemon reminded me
of his original e-mail address: kons...@geocities.com. Upon examining
DejaNews for that e-mail address, I found these gems.
I guess the reason the Major General is soooooo pissed off about Morse Code
licensing requirement is his doctor won't give him a waiver:
Subject: Testing for Dyslexia (and/or more or less realted condictions)
Author: Mark Morgan <kons...@geocities.com>
Date: 1998/05/02
Forum: alt.support.dyslexia
Posted on: 1998/05/02
Message-ID: <354aadae...@news.concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Hi there
I was diagnosed dyslexic, many years ago, have largely learned
to live with it by now (I am 34 yo and have a BA) Having gotten back
to dealing Ham Radio, I am back to dealing with Morse to at least
recieve a bit of and to docment today, my dyslexia, which would allow
both various changes in the Testing requirements. I need refences to
to help point my doctor ( an allergist) toward a test or three that
would support the fact that I still have dyslyexia today (FCC
dysbility requierments don't seem to realize that some things really
don't get much better with time) Idealy one that will lend some
support to the idea that I still have it, but are not too expensive to
for him to order given to me
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[Ed Note 10/10/99: Now the good Lt. Col. has a MA in the History of Law,
but he only had a BA back in 5/1998... so he's obviously been busy with
school and all...]
Not being able to find a Doctor who will sign off on giving you a free HF
ticket must be really frustrating. But, not as frustrating as Mark's love
life (or
lack thereof) apparently is:
Subject: Cen IL Bimale seeks Domme, would love spanking on his
birthday
Author: Mark Morgan <kons...@geocities.com>
Date: 1998/02/04
Forums: alt.sex.femdom, alt.personals.bondage, alt.personals.fetish,
alt.personals.spanking
Posted on: 1998/02/04
Message-ID: <34D938...@geocities.com>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Reply-To: kons...@geocities.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
my birthday is the 21 of feb 9i'll be 34 then)
i live near Springfield IL, and 33 white unmarried, Bisexual, switch
(tend to be a a bit more sub than Dom) who has experenced both sub and
Dom with other Males, but has only been Dom with women, and would really
like to try Femdom. Employed but not flush enough to make a ProDom my
first choice. i will not deal with solid waste but i think every thing
thing else is possible (i hedge because as soon as i think I have heard
it all someone seems to come up with something new) Things i
diffinently like are body worship, hot wax, bondage, spanking. i have
done and enoyed with people really into them watersports, lite
bloodlicking (i knew a girl into Vampires ok?) these are things i likely
to enjoy if they trun someone on, but fall flat if the other party(s)
aren't real into them, in that vein i will consider and may well get
into something i if it really turns you on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
alt.personals.spanking? Gee, there is that reoccuring "torture" theme again!
First morse code, now spanking. How kinky! Maybe Mark should try
some Morse code wankie spankie?
It would appear that our resident Joint Chiefs of Staff member is also a
member of PAGAN -- People Against Goodness And Normalcy:
Subject: Cen Ilininois pagan
Author: Mark Morgan <kons...@geocities.com>
Date: 1998/07/08
Forum: alt.pagan.contacts
Posted on: 1998/07/08
Message-ID: <35a30246...@news.concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
33 Bi wm poly pagan in Cen IL the very center of the state would like
to hear from others in the area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
So, let's re-cap Mark's wonderful life, shall we:
1) He was drafted into the US Army.
2) He is a member of the Chemical Corps.
3) The military won't let him retire.
4) He doesn't serve under the name 'Mark Morgan', but that's okay, 'cuz the
FBI, DOD, and CIA have all told him he can do it.
5) He is on-the-lam from stalking former marines and fatal attraction
ex-wives
6) He was, until recently, paying $5/hr. to access his ISP
7) He has a 248 IQ, but can't figure out how to use a spell checker.
8) He is a bi-sexual 33 yr. old Pagan male ham who likes to be spanked.
9) He can't find any action on the military base in Central IL, so he has to
ask people on USENET.
Have I missed anything?
*snicker*
MD
kons...@geocites.com
<kh...@arrl.net> wrote:
What is the point MD, I deny none of the facts I am Bisexual
a lesson taught me by the Army, and something the DoD is aware and
invicted to act on if it chooses. I am a pagan, a memebr of a religion
duely reconized by the IRS and the Army, amoug others. I am dyslexic,
certainly so what is the point?
One of theings about Outing someone MD which is what you doing
is that to be effective the target has to be in the closet be it the
closet of being BLG or the Broom closest as we pagans call hiding your
religion. But indeed I thank you MD for helping me make the point yet
again that the ProCoders are not so much interested in Morse Code but
in control and even terrorism
>
>
>So, let's re-cap Mark's wonderful life, shall we:
Hardly a complete recap let alone an accurtae one
>
>1) He was drafted into the US Army.
Lets see it is another MD lie that made this claim
>2) He is a member of the Chemical Corps.
Ture enough
>3) The military won't let him retire.
Never said that
>4) He doesn't serve under the name 'Mark Morgan', but that's okay, 'cuz the
> FBI, DOD, and CIA have all told him he can do it.
Indeed I never this either Never mentioned the CIA, as to DoD or FBI
the statement is partaily accurate, he leaves out the courts the US
>5) He is on-the-lam from stalking former marines and fatal attraction
>ex-wives
Not on the lam from anybody I do protect my privacy however,
in addition It is ex wife not wives, can 't you get anything right?
>6) He was, until recently, paying $5/hr. to access his ISP
Depends on the meaning of recently it now almost a year since that
was ture, and even that statement is impcomplete
>7) He has a 248 IQ, but can't figure out how to use a spell checker.
NOt ture, I simply can't figure how to use it and still keep up with
the NG, it would slow me to much, still don't get it
>8) He is a bi-sexual 33 yr. old Pagan male ham who likes to be spanked.
Not ture, I am 35 do try and keep up
>9) He can't find any action on the military base in Central IL, so he has to
> ask people on USENET.
Gee never tried the miliatray base, but evn so I don't have to
ask, I choose to, but then you don't believe in freddom do you
kons...@geocites.com
<kh...@arrl.net> wrote:
>I haven't recycled this posting for a while, but in light of the recent Lt.
>Col's
>constant whining about Morse code, I figured it was appropriate....
>
>--->
>
>Doesn't the military have a policy against homosexuality? Lookie here:
>(Retrieved from DejaNews) [Steve R: What's the current military policy
>on this sort of activity? What would happen to a commissioned officer
>like Lt. Maj. General Admiral Morgan if his C.O. were to find out?]
Sorry I did miss this point. if he does not know by now then he has
not been reading my letters of resignation since each of them
mentions, indeed even cites it as a reason for resiging.
The current policy is one of allowing the military to
discharge a person in such a case. the military is forced howver to
apply this policy uniformly
ke...@arrl.net
<kh...@arrl.net> wrote:
As much as I disagree with Mark in many of his posts here, I
have to feel that a post such as this one is totally uncalled for.
It's one thing to demonstrate points where he has knowing lied
(i.e., the MA in History, the military commission, etc.), but another
thing altogether to drag either his sexual orientation or his religion
(PAGAN does NOT mean "People Against Goodness And Normalcy" and it is an
insult to all practitioners of the religious beliefs lumped together as
"Pagan" to refer to it in that way, rather like referring to "Baptist"
as "Bloodthirsty, Angry, Pedophilic, Twisted, Ignorant, Sodomites
Together") into the discussion.
Whether a member of this group--or of ham radio in general--is
gay, straight or bisexual, is celibate, monogamous, polygamous, or
polyamorous or is into straight or kinky sex is no one's business but
his or her own (so long as their actions don't involve force or
children--and the posts that were "recycled" here make no such
indication). If Mark is into bisexual non-traditional activities, that
is totally his business and should have no bearing on his posts to this
group.
I _do_ agree that his posts about dyslexia with respect to the
code test, and his post about his 1998 BA are relevant--but only because
both relate to statements made in this group. If he received a BA in
1998 it would be _impossible_ for him to already have an MA, and thus
his claims to this group can be demonstrated to be deliberate lies. This
DOES have a bearing on his veracity and on the extent to which we should
accept his statements at face value on any issue.
I've seen a great deal of homophobia (as well as some racism) in
the ham groups, and that's more than a little troublesome. One of the
things I have always respected about our hobby is the degree to which
people are accepted regardless of differences. We communicate and form
friendships with individuals in nations where the political, social, and
religious values differ enormously from our own (including quite a few
where the religion would be defined as "Pagan" by Christianity). Neither
homophobia, religious prejudice, nor any other form of bigotry has any
place in our hobby, and it's offensive to see it appear with the
regularity that it has in recent times in these newsgroups.
I believe Mark deserves an apology for the inappropriate
references to his sexual orientation--as do all other gay, bisexual,
and/or pagan hams who may be reading this newsgroup.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
ke...@arrl.net
Please restrict all responses to Usenet messages
to the newsgroup in which the original message
appeared. Offensive and insulting email responses
will, regardless of content, be assumed to have
been intended for direct submission to the newsgroup
and will be posted there as a courtesy to the author.
Steve - KF2TI
says...
>
> Sorry I did miss this point. if he does not know by now then he has
> not been reading my letters of resignation since each of them
> mentions, indeed even cites it as a reason for resiging.
Oh yes, that's right. You are conscripted....he he he
That's from the movie Stategic Air Command, except Dutch is in the
reserve and recalled.
Mark on the other hand can't get out?? Guess that figures since he was
never in to begin with
A BA that turns into a Masters in History, yet Morgan is in the Chemical
Corps?? Maybe the African Korps. How History and Chemicals relate is
best left to the TV series CONNECTIONS
Michael P. Deignan
> (PAGAN does NOT mean "People Against Goodness And
> Normalcy" ...
Sure it does. You just don't understand the context.
> Whether a member of this group--or of ham radio in general--is
> gay, straight or bisexual, is celibate, monogamous, polygamous, or
> polyamorous or is into straight or kinky sex is no one's business but
> his or her own
Quite contrair. Mr. Morgan's postings where publically posted and
accessible via DejaNews, and furthermore are direct evidence that
clearly prove that *IF* he were in fact in the military service, that he
would be dishonorably discharged if his superiors became aware of
his abnormal lifestyle. Given that the Fleet Admiral has made claims
in the past that he was commissioned, was a Lt. Col., later claimed he
was just a Lt. He's claimed that he has attempted to resign on numerous
occasions, but his superiors refuse to let him. Since you're new to this
newsgripe, you're excused for not knowing all of this.
> I _do_ agree that his posts about dyslexia with respect to the
> code test, and his post about his 1998 BA are relevant--but only because
> both relate to statements made in this group. If he received a BA in
> 1998 it would be _impossible_ for him to already have an MA, and thus
> his claims to this group can be demonstrated to be deliberate lies. This
> DOES have a bearing on his veracity and on the extent to which we
> should accept his statements at face value on any issue.
Nothing Mark Morgan states we should accept at face value.
MD
Brian
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:08:36 -0400, "Michael P. Deignan"
> <kh...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
> As much as I disagree with Mark in many of his posts here, I
> have to feel that a post such as this one is totally uncalled for.
>
> It's one thing to demonstrate points where he has knowing lied
> (i.e., the MA in History, the military commission, etc.), but another
> thing altogether to drag either his sexual orientation or his religion
> (PAGAN does NOT mean "People Against Goodness And Normalcy" and it is an
> insult to all practitioners of the religious beliefs lumped together as
> "Pagan" to refer to it in that way, rather like referring to "Baptist"
> as "Bloodthirsty, Angry, Pedophilic, Twisted, Ignorant, Sodomites
> Together") into the discussion.
>
> Whether a member of this group--or of ham radio in general--is
> gay, straight or bisexual, is celibate, monogamous, polygamous, or
> polyamorous or is into straight or kinky sex is no one's business but
> his or her own (so long as their actions don't involve force or
> children--and the posts that were "recycled" here make no such
> indication). If Mark is into bisexual non-traditional activities, that
> is totally his business and should have no bearing on his posts to this
> group.
>
> I _do_ agree that his posts about dyslexia with respect to the
> code test, and his post about his 1998 BA are relevant--but only because
> both relate to statements made in this group. If he received a BA in
> 1998 it would be _impossible_ for him to already have an MA, and thus
> his claims to this group can be demonstrated to be deliberate lies. This
> DOES have a bearing on his veracity and on the extent to which we should
> accept his statements at face value on any issue.
>
> I've seen a great deal of homophobia (as well as some racism) in
> the ham groups, and that's more than a little troublesome. One of the
> things I have always respected about our hobby is the degree to which
> people are accepted regardless of differences. We communicate and form
> friendships with individuals in nations where the political, social, and
> religious values differ enormously from our own (including quite a few
> where the religion would be defined as "Pagan" by Christianity). Neither
> homophobia, religious prejudice, nor any other form of bigotry has any
> place in our hobby, and it's offensive to see it appear with the
> regularity that it has in recent times in these newsgroups.
>
> I believe Mark deserves an apology for the inappropriate
> references to his sexual orientation--as do all other gay, bisexual,
> and/or pagan hams who may be reading this newsgroup.
>
> Rick
>
> --
>
> Rick Adams
> ke...@arrl.net
>
> Please restrict all responses to Usenet messages
> to the newsgroup in which the original message
> appeared. Offensive and insulting email responses
> will, regardless of content, be assumed to have
> been intended for direct submission to the newsgroup
> and will be posted there as a courtesy to the author.
Mike is taking his acid revenge out on anyone within striking distance.
He grows more upset each day waiting for Riley to knock on his PO Box door
in Hawaii. He's probably become a nail-biter.
ke...@arrl.net
> Mike is taking his acid revenge out on anyone within striking distance.
>He grows more upset each day waiting for Riley to knock on his PO Box door
>in Hawaii. He's probably become a nail-biter.
Now Brian.
That wasn't at all PC.
The correct term is "surface tissue consumers," not "nail
biters." :-)
Steve Robeson
>From: "Michael P. Deignan" kh...@arrl.net
>Date: Sun, 10 October 1999 07:08 PM EDT
>Doesn't the military have a policy against homosexuality? Lookie here:
(Retrieved from DejaNews) [Steve R: What's the current military policy
on this sort of activity? What would happen to a commissioned officer like Lt.
Maj. General Admiral Morgan if his C.O. were to find out?]<
Even this one doesn't take one of those $3.99/minute Tarot card readings
to figure out!
Trust me...the Armed Forces is NOT in need of Mark's "service" so bad that
they'd let him stay in, Chemical Corps or not. This kind of embarrasment is
NOT what they need.
(I will take this opportunity to point out the the USMC, considered
"extremist" by several female "pols", doesn't have this problem...or if it
finds out about it, puts the offender on the street before they can say "Oh
S***, I'm unemployed!)
Just keep up on current events on TV...they are discharging pilots (who
are ALREADY at a serious premium in the ranks) for having HETEROSEXUAL,
consensual sex.
You think someone like Mark would last one more day in uniform if his
assertions were true?
Sorry, Mark. We KNOW you are lying.
YOU know you are lying. If you'd just STOP lying we'd go on about
business...but you keep trying to reinvent these Walter Mitty delusions of who
and what you are, and it just ruins the $1.50 worth of credibility that you
have left.
And I see that you haven't taken the flipping hint, Mark...an ALLERGIST is
NOT the proper medical discipline to persue your neurological deficits through.
N-E-U-R-O-L-O-G-I-S-T.
Now try, just TRY and take a hint and get proper medical care.
Steve
ke...@arrl.net
<kh...@arrl.net> wrote:
>> (PAGAN does NOT mean "People Against Goodness And
>> Normalcy" ...
>
>Sure it does. You just don't understand the context.
Sure I do.
By referring to himself as a Pagan, Mark is stating that he is a
practitioner of the Wiccan faith.
While Pagan refers to a larger range of religions than Wicca
alone, that fact is irrelevant. Wicca is a legitimate religion with as
much right to be treated with respect as any Christian sect.
I assume you are referring to his values, not to his religion
with your interpretation of PAGAN, but the fact remains that if he had
stated, for example, that he were a Christian, you would never have
considered saying that this meant "Confused Homosexuals reveling in
sexually transmitted infections and nastiness."
>> Whether a member of this group--or of ham radio in general--is
>> gay, straight or bisexual, is celibate, monogamous, polygamous, or
>> polyamorous or is into straight or kinky sex is no one's business but
>> his or her own
>
>Quite contrair. Mr. Morgan's postings where publically posted and
>accessible via DejaNews, and furthermore are direct evidence that
>clearly prove that *IF* he were in fact in the military service, that he
>would be dishonorably discharged if his superiors became aware of
>his abnormal lifestyle.
Ignoring the fact that your statement "abnormal lifestyle" is
itself judgmental of others, the more important issue is that this is a
discussion group dealing with amateur radio not military service.
Exposing deliberate lies (such as the MA in History one) is
reasonable--that serves to put other participants on notice that he is
not to be believed (assuming he can be understood in the first place, of
course). In the same manner, providing evidence that he is lying about
his military status, his "Chemical" experience, his "dyslexia" (which
does NOT have the effect of distorting grammar, only word or character
order), etc. is totally reasonable. But showing that he is bisexual or
involved in non-traditional lifestyles does _not_ prove that he is not
in the military--only that if he is (I know, if he is pigs can fly, but
. . .) he has not been charged with homosexual behavior under the UCMJ
as yet. There is no reason to believe that his supposed superiors _are_
aware of his lifestyle, thus the references to his sexuality here are
inappropriate and simply serve as ways of attacking Mark personally.
Unfortunately, because of their nature, they may well hurt or offend
other members of the newsgroup as well. I'm not terribly concerned with
Mark's feelings in the matter--he is perfectly capable of defending
himself (although we may not understand what he is saying when he does),
but those other members of the group don't deserve to be hurt or
offended by posts meant to attack him.
>Given that the Fleet Admiral has made claims
>in the past that he was commissioned, was a Lt. Col., later claimed he
>was just a Lt. He's claimed that he has attempted to resign on numerous
>occasions, but his superiors refuse to let him. Since you're new to this
>newsgripe, you're excused for not knowing all of this.
Oh I've followed some parts of it. Again, I don't dispute the
appropriateness of attacking him for dishonesty. As a Vietnam Veteran
myself (albeit just an EM, not an officer), I'm irritated by those who
lie about having served in the military in order to enhance their
positions myself. I just don't see any relation between his lies and the
need to put down those who are gay (and before someone jumps in with a
predictable response, I'll point out that I don't have any personal
stake in the issue; I'm straight, have a teenage son, and have been
monogamously married for 20 years).
>Nothing Mark Morgan states we should accept at face value.
Nothing Mark states can we _understand_ at face value! :-)
Ivanna DaBootie
>Date: Sun, 10 October 1999 07:25 PM EDT
>What is the point MD, I deny none of the facts I am Bisexual a lesson taught
me by the Army, and something the DoD is aware and invicted to act on if it
chooses.<
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Something the Army TAUGHT you...?!?!?!?
YOU LYING, IRREVERENT CREEP!!!!!!!!
>>1) He was drafted into the US Army.
> Lets see it is another MD lie that made this claim
>
>>2) He is a member of the Chemical Corps.
> Ture enough
>
>>3) The military won't let him retire.
>
>Never said that
Yes, you did...want it preposted from DejaNews...AGAIN...?!?!?
>>7) He has a 248 IQ, but can't figure out how to use a spell checker.
>
>NOt ture, I simply can't figure how to use it and still keep up with the NG,
it would slow me to much, still don't get it<
Sure, Mark...sure! Don't let anything like "BEING UNDERSTOOD" get in the
way of the virulent rhetoric and lies you spew forth here.
WHY start a trend and have people REALLY understand you? Clarity in
communications is SO over-rated!
>>9) He can't find any action on the military base in Central IL, so he has to
ask people on USENET.
>
> Gee never tried the miliatray base, but evn so I don't have to ask, I
choose to, but then you don't believe in freddom do you<
THIS is good!...Claims the "Army" taught him to be bi-sexual, THEN claims
he can't find any "action" on "the base".
Mark, you couldn't get your NAME right is it weren't onyour birth
certificate....ooops...I forgot, THAT'S not your name anymore either...well gee
whiz!
One flight of fantasy after another!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
ke...@arrl.net
>Something the Army TAUGHT you...?!?!?!?
>
> YOU LYING, IRREVERENT CREEP!!!!!!!!
Now, be nice.
It could have taught him to be bisexual.
Before the Army he may have thought himself gay.
> THIS is good!...Claims the "Army" taught him to be bi-sexual, THEN claims
>he can't find any "action" on "the base".
Not unreasonable if the above is accurate! :-)
Dave Heil
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:38:43 -0400, "Michael P. Deignan"
> <kh...@arrl.net> wrote:
> By referring to himself as a Pagan, Mark is stating that he is a
> practitioner of the Wiccan faith.
>
> While Pagan refers to a larger range of religions than Wicca
> alone, that fact is irrelevant. Wicca is a legitimate religion with as
> much right to be treated with respect as any Christian sect.
The Wiccan faith? Legitimate religion? C'mon, Rick!
> >> Whether a member of this group--or of ham radio in general--is
> >> gay, straight or bisexual, is celibate, monogamous, polygamous, or
> >> polyamorous or is into straight or kinky sex is no one's business but
> >> his or her own
> >
> >Quite contrair. Mr. Morgan's postings where publically posted and
> >accessible via DejaNews, and furthermore are direct evidence that
> >clearly prove that *IF* he were in fact in the military service, that he
> >would be dishonorably discharged if his superiors became aware of
> >his abnormal lifestyle.
>
> Ignoring the fact that your statement "abnormal lifestyle" is
> itself judgmental of others, the more important issue is that this is a
> discussion group dealing with amateur radio not military service.
We are all called upon to make judgements every day. Many of those we
make are, of necessity, value judgements. Mark's public posts draw
attention to his abnormality. He has even flaunted it here. His
bi-sexual S&M leanings are not, per the dictionary definition of the
word "abnormal", average, typical or usual. My values (and the
judgements I've used to form them) reject the practices in which Mark
Morgan engages.
I've also made a judgement that Mark is a pathological liar. He also
takes great pains to paint himself as a victim in several areas of his
life. His morse-code-as-torture, morse-code-as-unconstitutional views
are what we most often see here.
> Exposing deliberate lies (such as the MA in History one) is
> reasonable--that serves to put other participants on notice that he is
> not to be believed (assuming he can be understood in the first place, of
> course). In the same manner, providing evidence that he is lying about
> his military status, his "Chemical" experience, his "dyslexia" (which
> does NOT have the effect of distorting grammar, only word or character
> order), etc. is totally reasonable. But showing that he is bisexual or
> involved in non-traditional lifestyles does _not_ prove that he is not
> in the military--only that if he is (I know, if he is pigs can fly, but
> . . .) he has not been charged with homosexual behavior under the UCMJ
> as yet. There is no reason to believe that his supposed superiors _are_
> aware of his lifestyle, thus the references to his sexuality here are
> inappropriate and simply serve as ways of attacking Mark personally.
> Unfortunately, because of their nature, they may well hurt or offend
> other members of the newsgroup as well. I'm not terribly concerned with
> Mark's feelings in the matter--he is perfectly capable of defending
> himself (although we may not understand what he is saying when he does),
> but those other members of the group don't deserve to be hurt or
> offended by posts meant to attack him.
Rick, I'm hurt and offended by Mark's morals but I manage to deal with
it. If others are hurt or offended by reading my views, I suppose
they'll be able to handle it. I totally reject the idea that we can
state our views concerning amateur radio licensing but are supposed to
restrict our views on anything else. The age of "political correctness"
must end.
Dave Heil 5H3US, K8MN
--
For 5H3US photos, go to:
http://jjr.ne.mediaone.net/5H3US/
For information on the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania, go to:
http://www.cats-net.com/amemb/main.htm
Steve Robeson
>Date: Tue, 12 October 1999 03:28 PM EDT
>Now, be nice. It could have taught him to be bisexual. Before the Army he may
have thought himself gay.<
In either case, he's still lying. And if he "thought himself gay" BEFORE
having been "commissioned", he was DEFINITELY in violation of the UCMJ.
>THIS is good!...Claims the "Army" taught him to be bi-sexual, THEN claims he
can't find any "action" on "the base".
>
> Not unreasonable if the above is accurate! :-)<<
HOW can the Army "teach" him to be "bisexual" ((visions of K4YZ rolling
on floor laughing so hard he's choking)), then there MUST have been SOME
resource on the base.
This is getting more ludicrous by the moment.
ke...@arrl.net
> In either case, he's still lying. And if he "thought himself gay" BEFORE
>having been "commissioned", he was DEFINITELY in violation of the UCMJ.
Nope.
Only if he _acted_ on those thoughts.
> HOW can the Army "teach" him to be "bisexual" ((visions of K4YZ rolling
>on floor laughing so hard he's choking)), then there MUST have been SOME
>resource on the base.
Well, if he was gay and barracks talk stirred his interest in
women . . . :-)
> This is getting more ludicrous by the moment.
I know.
Fun isn't it? ;-)
ke...@arrl.net
>The Wiccan faith? Legitimate religion? C'mon, Rick!
The Church of Wicca is a registered, legal, church in all 50
states--one MORE than the Church of God, btw.
Simply because it doesn't represent your particular religious
beliefs does't make it any less valid. Even the Church of Satan is a
recognized religious organization.
You're free to skoff at those religions, but their adherents are
equally free to skoff at your own belief structure. Christianity
(assuming you are Christian) has no "lock" on truth--all religions have
equal value and should receive the same level of respect.
>We are all called upon to make judgements every day. Many of those we
>make are, of necessity, value judgements. Mark's public posts draw
>attention to his abnormality. He has even flaunted it here. His
>bi-sexual S&M leanings are not, per the dictionary definition of the
>word "abnormal", average, typical or usual. My values (and the
>judgements I've used to form them) reject the practices in which Mark
>Morgan engages.
Fair enough.
However, since the majority of the people in the world do NOT
consider radio a two-way medium, it is just as valid to state that
because you are an amateur radio operator, your own lifestyle is
"abnormal" by the same standard you apply to Mark.
>I've also made a judgement that Mark is a pathological liar. He also
>takes great pains to paint himself as a victim in several areas of his
>life.
Here we agree.
There is plenty to fault Mark over with respect to his honesty,
his communications skills (did I actually use "communications skills" in
the same sentence as Mark's name???), etc., without having to attack him
on religious or lifestyle issues which may inadvertently offend other
members of the newsgroup who do NOT behave in the way he does.
>His morse-code-as-torture, morse-code-as-unconstitutional views
>are what we most often see here.
Actually his indecipherable ravings on issues are what we see
most--his code views are merely a part of that.
I happen to support the no-code arguments myself--but at least I
do so from the perspective of looking at the issue rather than one of
personal benefit as does Mark.
>Rick, I'm hurt and offended by Mark's morals but I manage to deal with
>it. If others are hurt or offended by reading my views, I suppose
>they'll be able to handle it. I totally reject the idea that we can
>state our views concerning amateur radio licensing but are supposed to
>restrict our views on anything else. The age of "political correctness"
>must end.
I don't support political correctness, Dave, but I do feel that
drawing a persons personal religious beliefs or sexual practices into a
discussion in order to discredit him is a bit unfair. If Mark were
arguing that he should have special treatment because he is bisexual or
because he is a Pagan, then I would definitely agree that it was
appropriate, but those are issues that have not been raised by him here,
and that have nothing to do with his statements in this group.
I could just as easily state that _I_ am "hurt and offended" by
your own morals--I'm a Tantric Buddhist, which is by definition a pagan
religion, and I have a number of very close friends who are gay and/or
wiccans. None of them demonstrates Mark's lack of honesty or integrity,
and they would be as offended by his behavior here as you are. There are
certainly bound to be gay hams in this group, and probably at least some
other pagan hams--if not actual wiccans (it really isn't that uncommon a
religion in the US anymore--on the Internet according to studies there
the ONLY religion that has more adherents is Christianity--online there
are more wiccans than Jews and Moslems combined!). Why offend those
individuals to strike back at someone who so clearly leaves himself open
to attack in a wide range of ways?
It's not PC, Dave. Just courtesy to your fellow hams.
kons...@geo.com
>On 12 Oct 1999 11:20:14 GMT, kf4...@aol.com (Ivanna DaBootie) wrote:
>
>>Something the Army TAUGHT you...?!?!?!?
>>
>> YOU LYING, IRREVERENT CREEP!!!!!!!!
>
> Now, be nice.
>
> It could have taught him to be bisexual.
>
> Before the Army he may have thought himself gay.
Or indeed not know either Gay or bi was till that point in
time
>
>> THIS is good!...Claims the "Army" taught him to be bi-sexual, THEN claims
>>he can't find any "action" on "the base".
>
> Not unreasonable if the above is accurate! :-)
Esp if I don't even what base he is refering to, the nearest
Base I know of is Scott AFB and that is a bit of a hike
>
> Rick
kons...@geo.com
>>Subject: Re: Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
>>From: ke...@arrl.net
>>Date: Tue, 12 October 1999 03:28 PM EDT
>
>>Now, be nice. It could have taught him to be bisexual. Before the Army he may
>have thought himself gay.<
>
> In either case, he's still lying. And if he "thought himself gay" BEFORE
>having been "commissioned", he was DEFINITELY in violation of the UCMJ.
I have mentioned the facts before I was unaware even of the possiblity
of sex in other than Male female pattern at the time of my enlistment
>
>>THIS is good!...Claims the "Army" taught him to be bi-sexual, THEN claims he
>can't find any "action" on "the base".
>>
>> Not unreasonable if the above is accurate! :-)<<
>
> HOW can the Army "teach" him to be "bisexual" ((visions of K4YZ rolling
>on floor laughing so hard he's choking)), then there MUST have been SOME
>resource on the base.
Indeed when I was on active duty and on a base that was one
thing, that aint the case today
>
> This is getting more ludicrous by the moment.
>
For once I agree with you It is redicous to see Rick suggest
something that is not the case (it is not a lie in this case since
Rick does not know well enough) and then you take his statement as
reason to accuse Me of violating the UCMJ
Indeed this is as funny as the issue has every gotten on the
NG, what any of of it has to do with the ARS is of course beyond me
kons...@geo.com
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:38:43 -0400, "Michael P. Deignan"
><kh...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>>> (PAGAN does NOT mean "People Against Goodness And
>>> Normalcy" ...
>>
>>Sure it does. You just don't understand the context.
>
> Sure I do.
>
> By referring to himself as a Pagan, Mark is stating that he is a
>practitioner of the Wiccan faith.
As a point of correction this not an accurate statement. I am
not a Wiccan, but a but an Neo Classical Pagan, your stament is like
scalling a baptist a Methodist, not insulting but in accurte
>
> While Pagan refers to a larger range of religions than Wicca
>alone, that fact is irrelevant. Wicca is a legitimate religion with as
>much right to be treated with respect as any Christian sect.
Indeed as are the rest of them
>
> I assume you are referring to his values, not to his religion
>with your interpretation of PAGAN, but the fact remains that if he had
>stated, for example, that he were a Christian, you would never have
>considered saying that this meant "Confused Homosexuals reveling in
>sexually transmitted infections and nastiness."
>
Dwight Stewart
discharged for homosexiality would receive a general discharge (under
honorable conditions), not a dishonorable. To receive a dishonorable,
there would have to be other, more serious, circumstances involved (such
as a crime).
Dwight Stewart
Amateur Radio, Technician
F.C.C. License: W5NET
http://www.qsl.net/w5net
"Michael P. Deignan" wrote:
>
> <snip> ...prove that *IF* he were in fact in the
> military service, that he would be dishonorably
> discharged if his superiors became aware of
> his abnormal lifestyle. <snip>ð
Dwight Stewart
Military personnel have been discharged for committing adultery
(behavior unbecoming an officer - UCMJ). And military personnel have
been discharged for having sex with a subordinate (a violation of UCMJ).
Military personnel have been discharged for sexual harrassment (a
violation of UCMJ). And military personnel have been discharged for
sexual crimes (such as sexual assault, rape, etc.).
And, finally, military personnel have been discharged for lying when
questioned about sexial misconduct (lying is a violation of UMCJ).
However, there has never been a case where a member of the military
has been discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.
Dwight Stewart
Amateur Radio, Technician
F.C.C. License: W5NET
http://www.qsl.net/w5net
Steve Robeson wrote:
>
> Just keep up on current events on TV...they are discharging pilots (who
> are ALREADY at a serious premium in the ranks) for having HETEROSEXUAL,
> consensual sex..
Steve Robeson
>Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 07:19 AM EDT
>However, there has never been a case where a member of the military has been
discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.<
Point taken.
73
Steve
NoDXius Icanworkius Rex
How about the female B52 pilot awhile back?
--
DXing from the edge of the Trench
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Robeson
>Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 02:28 AM EDT
>As a point of correction this not an accurate statement. I am not a Wiccan,
but a but an Neo Classical Pagan, your stament is like scalling a baptist a
Methodist, not insulting but in accurte<
And what makes YOU think it's not insulting, Mark?
Steve Robeson
>Date: Tue, 12 October 1999 10:15 PM EDT
>I don't support political correctness, Dave, but I do feel that drawing a
persons personal religious beliefs or sexual practices into a discussion in
order to discredit him is a bit unfair.<
This is where some of that "history" about Mark comes into play, Rick.
Mark took off on this "Walter Mitty-ish" crusade to try and squelch me by
insinuating that he was a field grade officer in the US Army. When I followed
up his assertion with a call to DPMA and blew the whistle on his lie, he
changed it to "just" a lieutenant, and that he was drafted and unable to
"resign".
That's when another poster here (not me) did a DejaNews research on him
and the other stuff came to light.
One lie has since snowballed into another, and now, except to admit he was
just clowning around and drop the rediculous assertions, he has no way out
except to perpetuate the lies and hope we get lost in the maelstrom of
confusion.
It was Mark that started the assertions of his "prefessional military
career" and his inability to resign. And it's Mark who continues to this very
day to assert that he's on or has been on "active duty".
No one, myself included give a Rat's Kazoo how he prays, who he prays to,
or in what position he likes his sodomy...but as long as he keeps making the
rediculous lies about being an Armed Forces officer all-the-while flaunting
this particular lifestyle, we will keep feeding it back to him.
He deserves it.
Steve
R.L. Tannehill, P.E.
>
> >Subject: Re: Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
> >Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 07:19 AM EDT
>
> >However, there has never been a case where a member of the military has been
> discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.<
Not True! Many have been discharged for having consensual heterosexual
sex, especially with other members of the military.
Rick T.
>
> Point taken.
>
> 73
>
> Steve
Steve Robeson
>Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 01:03 PM EDT
>Not True! Many have been discharged for having consensual heterosexual sex,
especially with other members of the military. <
As much as I hate to admit it, within the limits of the caveats he
provided, he's correct. Example: even a consenting adult female (Officer) has
consenting sex with an adult male (enlisted), and neither is not married, then
it is fraternizing.
Usually, if it is different branches of the service, it is not a problem.
It's when they are within the same branch that a problem occurs.
73 de K4YZ
Dick Carroll
>
> In article <19991013094549...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> k4...@aol.com (Steve Robeson) wrote:
> > >Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 07:19 AM EDT
> >
> > >However, there has never been a case where a member of the military
> has been
> > discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.<
> >
> >
>
> How about the female B52 pilot awhile back?
That was not for doing it - it was for disobeying an order
from her commander to stop doing it. She resigned rather
than face a court martial.
ke...@arrl.net
> Or indeed not know either Gay or bi was till that point in
>time
That I can accept as a reasonable statement. You would be _far_
from the only person who ever entered the service with no knowledge of
his or her sexual orientation.
>>> THIS is good!...Claims the "Army" taught him to be bi-sexual, THEN claims
>>>he can't find any "action" on "the base".
>>
>> Not unreasonable if the above is accurate! :-)
>
> Esp if I don't even what base he is refering to, the nearest
>Base I know of is Scott AFB and that is a bit of a hike
Er, Mark.
You _did_ make the statement he is responding to.
ke...@arrl.net
> No one, myself included give a Rat's Kazoo how he prays, who he prays to,
>or in what position he likes his sodomy...but as long as he keeps making the
>rediculous lies about being an Armed Forces officer all-the-while flaunting
>this particular lifestyle, we will keep feeding it back to him.
>
> He deserves it.
I agree.
But do the other members of the group who may share his
orientation or religion, but not his dishonesty? Remember, for every one
poster to the average newsgroup there are at least 500 readers--and not
all will be US Citizens with the set of religious and moral values that
are accepted by the majority of Americans. Many gay men and lesbians
serve openly in the armed forces of other nations, and many adherents to
pagan faiths are hams (as a Tantric Buddhist, I qualify as a "pagan"
myself--although as a Buddhist negative references to paganism don't
offend me as they would a wiccan or a traditionalist). Comments meant to
respond to Mark's dishonest posts may simultaneously be making other
members of the group feel uncomfortable or unwelcome among us, something
I doubt you or most other regular posters here would want to do.
It's easy to nail Mark on his dishonesty and his inane writing
without having to nail him on issues that could affect others.
ke...@arrl.net
> As a point of correction this not an accurate statement. I am
>not a Wiccan, but a but an Neo Classical Pagan, your stament is like
>scalling a baptist a Methodist, not insulting but in accurte
I stand corrected.
Most of the people I know who refer to themselves as pagan are
either traditionalist or wiccan. I'm familiar with both, and with
neo-pagans, but Neo-Classical Pagan is a new term to me. It would seem
to imply that you are part of a new old tradition, which would (of
course) be a contradiction in terms. While I'm not a follower of the
Western pagan traditions personally (I'm a Tantric Buddhist), because
both my grandmothers were traditionalists (one in the New Forest
tradition the other in the Black Forest tradition) and because I've have
a number of close friends who are neo-pagan or wiccan (i.e., Gavin
Frost, Isaac Bonewitts, Charmaigne Dey, etc.) I'd be interested in
knowing what tradition the term applies to.
> Indeed as are the rest of them
True.
ke...@arrl.net
wrote:
> Actually Mike, that is not quite accurate. Military personnel
>discharged for homosexiality would receive a general discharge (under
>honorable conditions), not a dishonorable. To receive a dishonorable,
>there would have to be other, more serious, circumstances involved (such
>as a crime).
Depends on the circumstances, Dwight.
If they were discharged for _being_ homosexual, you are correct.
But if they were discharged for engaging in homosexual conduct,
they would receive a DD. Homosexual behavior is a crime under the
UCMJ--as are a surprising number of heterosexual activities that are
routinely engaged in by military personnel.
ke...@arrl.net
wrote:
> However, there has never been a case where a member of the military
>has been discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.
I believe you may be wrong on that one Dwight.
I don't have the case name at hand (and will try to get it for
you) but I _do_ remember a Spec 4 being discharged for engaging in oral
sex with a woman he picked up in a bar. As you know oral sex falls under
the sodomy statutes in the UCMJ and is considered a crime even if
committed by a married couple.
Steve Robeson
>Date: Thu, 14 October 1999 12:35 AM EDT
>Message-id:
>But do the other members of the group who may share his orientation or
religion, but not his dishonesty?<
If they do, I don't care.
The ONLY point to be made on this issue is that Mark claims, over and
over, that he is (a) a "drafted" officer and that (b) he can't resign.
In either case, his openly "alternative" lifestyle is means for immediate
discharge from the Armed Forces...EVEN the Army!
>Many gay men and lesbians serve openly in the armed forces of other
nations,...(snip)<
Yes, they do. But those are not AMERICAN Armed Forces, and they can make
thier own rules. In the United States, Mark's "lifestyle" is grounds for
seperation.
That he asserts he can't get a discharge or be allowed to resign is a lie.
Period.
>Comments meant to respond to Mark's dishonest posts may simultaneously be
making other members of the group feel uncomfortable or unwelcome among us,
something I doubt you or most other regular posters here would want to do.<
To all those who shall see these, presents Greetings:
Any comment made herein by myself now or in the past relative to
"alternative" lifestyles by The Liar Mark Morgan, has been ONLY to underscore
the fact that his assertions that he is (a) an Officer of the Armed Forces and
(b) cannot obtain a seperation from same are untruthful.
As pointed out before, Mark's openly "alternative" preferences are
well-known grounds for dismissal, and his assertions to the contrary are lies.
If you yourself prefer any give sexual proclivity, be my guest, as long as
you are not doing it in the Armed Forces...or at least aren't stupid enough to
make it public domain.
>It's easy to nail Mark on his dishonesty and his inane writing without having
to nail him on issues that could affect others.<
True, but this one's a felony, punishable by imprisonment and or fine.
And it just tickles me to no end he keeps perpetuating it!
Steve
ke...@arrl.net
> True, but this one's a felony, punishable by imprisonment and or fine.
>And it just tickles me to no end he keeps perpetuating it!
So is impersonating an officer in the United States Military.
Dwight Stewart
NoDXius Icanworkius Rex wrote:
>
> In article <19991013094549...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> k4...@aol.com (Steve Robeson) wrote:
> > >Subject: Re: Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
> > >From: Dwight Stewart ste...@amouse.net
> > >Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 07:19 AM EDT
> >
> > >However, there has never been a case where
> > a member of the military has been discharged
> > solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.
> >
> > Point taken.
> >
>
> How about the female B52 pilot awhile back?
Lt. Kelly Flynn was having sex with the husband of an enlisted female
on the base (fraternization is a violation of UCMJ). When the enlisted
female soldier complained, Lt. Flynn's commander questioned Flynn about
it and she origionally claimed no sexual encounter occured. Her
commander counseled her about the reasons such a relationship was not
permitted and the subject was dropped.
The enlisted female's commander questioned the husband during a
counselling session, where he admitted that an encounter did occur (and
was still occurring). This was reported to Flynn's commander.
Lt. Flynn's commander recalled Flynn, advised her to end the
situation, and gave her a written reprimand. Lt. Flynn admitted to the
relationship and agreed to end the it.
At a later date, upon hearing that the relationship was not ended, the
commander gave Lt. Flynn a written order to end the relationship. The
written order also advised her of the consequences if she failed to do
so. Flynn signed the written order.
After the end of this meeting, the commander asked CID to investigate
the matter further. Specifically, CID was to establish if the
relationship was ended or, if it had not, to gather evidence to prove
that the relationship continued.
When it was firmly established that the relationship had not ended,
Flynn was removed from her duties to face disciplinary action. It was
decided that even though Lt. Flynn's actions was clearly fraternization
(a violation of UCMJ), lying and disobeying orders were the stronger charges.
Lt. Flynn decided to resign rather than face charges of behavior
unbecoming an officer (lying) and disobeying the direct orders of a
superior officer.
While the above is an overview of the actual events (certainly other
things happened in all of this), I want to make one thing very clear.
Lt. Flynn was fully aware, both before and during the events, that her
actions were a violation of military policy. She was also aware of the
possible consequencies. In spite of this, she did it anyway and
therefore has nobody to blame but herself.
Flynn was not discharged for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.
She resigned rather than face charges for lying and disobeying orders.
Dwight Stewart
>
> Not True! Many have been discharged for having consensual heterosexual
> sex, especially with other members of the military.
You seem to confused about the regulations concerning sexual
relationships within the military. Perhaps you don't understand why the
regulations concerning fraternization, for example, exist.
The purpose of these regulations is to prevent superiors, who have
great power over the personnel under them, from abusing that power to
gain sexual favors.
The enlisted female, for example, is at a great disadvantage if she
were to refuse the advances of a superior officer. Therefore, she may
feel very pressured to give in to his advances, even if she would prefer
not to.
This not only applies to the enlisted soldier. It applies to any
person who may be subjected to pressure due to the power entrusted to a
superior. This could mean a junior officer versus a senior officer, a
junior enlisted person versus a senior enlisted person, the spouse of
any of these, and any other person who is at a disadvantage when
negotiating sexual relationships.
To prevent this, the military decided to eliminate these types of
relationships entirely. An officer, or any other member of the
military, is free to have relationships with individuals of the same
rank. They are also free to have relationships with individuals outside
their area of responsibility (e.g. outside the military). But they may
not have relationships with anyone under their authority.
These regulations are very clear, and each senior member of the
military is aware of these regulations. NCO's learn these regulations
during the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC), which is
required prior to promotion to Sergeant. Officers learn these
regulations during their training.
If a person were descharged for fraternization, perhaps you would see
that as just consensual heterosexual sex with another member of the
military. However, the military member fully understands the
regulation, the purpose of the regulation, that they violated the
regulation, and that they were discharged for a ligitimate reason.
Dwight Stewart
(anything is possible), but I'm sure other issues were involved.
I know all this is getting off the subject of this newsgroup, but this
is far more interesting than the endless code debate.
Dwight Stewart
Amateur Radio, Technician
F.C.C. License: W5NET
http://www.qsl.net/w5net
ke...@arrl.net wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:19:06 -0700, Dwight Stewart <ste...@amouse.net>
> wrote:
>
> > However, there has never been a case where a member of the military
> >has been discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.
>
> I believe you may be wrong on that one Dwight.
>
> I don't have the case name at hand (and will try to get it for
> you) but I _do_ remember a Spec 4 being discharged for engaging in oral
> sex with a woman he picked up in a bar. As you know oral sex falls under
> the sodomy statutes in the UCMJ and is considered a crime even if
> committed by a married couple.
>
> Rickt
ke...@arrl.net
wrote:
> I'd like to see more on this, Rick. Perhaps such a case does exist
>(anything is possible), but I'm sure other issues were involved.
I'll dig up the cite and specifics for you, Dwight, and post
them here.
> I know all this is getting off the subject of this newsgroup, but this
>is far more interesting than the endless code debate.
I tend to agree--although it _would_ be nice if we could somehow
manage to have the variety of policy discussions here concerning issues
that _don't_ deal with code testing that we have concerning issues that
_don't_ deal with ham radio! :-)
Brian
> >Subject: Re: Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
> >From: Dwight Stewart ste...@amouse.net
> >Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 07:19 AM EDT
>
> >However, there has never been a case where a member of the military has been
> discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.<
>
> Point taken.
>
> 73
>
> Steve
Steve, take your point back.If the heterosexual, consensual sex is outside the
context of your own marriage, then they certainly have prosecuted for solely that
reason.
Brian
> In article <19991013094549...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> k4...@aol.com (Steve Robeson) wrote:
> > >Subject: Re: Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
> > >From: Dwight Stewart ste...@amouse.net
> > >Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 07:19 AM EDT
> >
> > >However, there has never been a case where a member of the military
> has been
> > discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.<
> >
> > Point taken.
> >
>
> How about the female B52 pilot awhile back?
>
> --
> DXing from the edge of the Trench
Kelley Flynn. There have been others.
Brian
> NoDXius Icanworkius Rex wrote:
> >
> > In article <19991013094549...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> > k4...@aol.com (Steve Robeson) wrote:
> > > >Subject: Re: Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
> > > >From: Dwight Stewart ste...@amouse.net
> > > >Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 07:19 AM EDT
> > >
> > > >However, there has never been a case where a member of the military
> > has been
> > > discharged solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.<
> > >
> > > Point taken.
> > >
> >
> > How about the female B52 pilot awhile back?
>
> That was not for doing it - it was for disobeying an order
> from her commander to stop doing it. She resigned rather
> than face a court martial.
Sort of. It was an extra-marital affair with an enlisted man in her unit.
She would have been prosecuted regardless of the "order" not to do it.
Brian
> >Subject: Re: Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
> True, but this one's a felony, punishable by imprisonment and or fine.
> And it just tickles me to no end he keeps perpetuating it!
>
> Steve
HOGWASH! You did the same for "Cutie Boy" who never once intimated that he had
anything to do with the military service. You are simply a hater.
Brian
Dwight Stewart wrote:
>
>
> NoDXius Icanworkius Rex wrote:
> >
> > In article <19991013094549...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> > k4...@aol.com (Steve Robeson) wrote:
> > > >Subject: Re: Mark Morgan, the gay pagan dyslexic ham?
> > > >From: Dwight Stewart ste...@amouse.net
> > > >Date: Wed, 13 October 1999 07:19 AM EDT
> > >
> > > >However, there has never been a case where
> > > a member of the military has been discharged
> > > solely for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.
> > >
> > > Point taken.
> > >
> >
> > How about the female B52 pilot awhile back?
>
> Flynn was not discharged for having heterosexual, consensual, sex.
> She resigned rather than face charges for lying and disobeying orders.
>