RC>>> Why arent you after Sauer for demeaning the service of
 RC>>> those whom served one or more terms?

 BK>>  I do not see Sauer attacking anyone who does not attack him
 BK>>  first.

 RC> I see him often attacking people in message replies when
 RC> the only offense was a different opinion..

 For their service? Someone who does not have a history of
 attacking Ross?

 Remember, that nice little discussion we were haveing, with even
 Hulett and Sauer exchanging polite and proper messages? And then
 Mimi had to jump in and shit all over Ross. She just couldn't
 let it go on without trashing the whole thing.

 RC> Like I was telling Wilson in your echo, Sauer has a
 RC> sufficient amount of guilt himself that he must bear for
 RC> all the crap he has taken and takes, rather attracts.

 Not near enough to justify what I am seeing.

 RC>>> You are the one saying those without service shouldnt be
 RC>>> critical of those who are with, I submit to you that

 BK>>  Correction: I say they should not demean the service of those
 BK>>  who did serve.

 RC> and those whom served less than one full commitment
 RC> shouldnt be whining about another whom did but didnt go
 RC> Rambo and request duty in a couple punative actions that
 RC> utilized forces already on station.

 Like I said, I don't see it happening to those who don't strike
 first.

 RC>>> Sauer's position is no better in contrast to the angst you
 RC>>> have over the entire topic, now why arent you setting the
 RC>>> boy straight?

 BK>>  Like I said, he jumps on those who jump on him. The right
 BK>>  wingers around her play playground bullies on him, and he fights
 BK>>  back. He may not do it well, but he doesn't stop fighting.

 RC> He needs to jump on topics he has standing to comment on.

 Ok, I will quote that to Hulett, Mimi, and the rest of the
 chickenhawks when they jump all over anyone else's service.

 RC>>> However I think you find it appropriate that Mr 65 days has
 RC>>> standing to critique Stans service yet 65 days doesnt rate
 RC>>> to your 1461.

 BK>>  When Hardegree gets off Sauer's case then Sauer will not have
 BK>>  any reason to attack him.

 RC> Yes he will, the anomosity between them two runs deep.

 With Hardegree, that's not hard. He contributes nothing but
 hate. He is incapable of having a decent exchange with anyone
 who disagrees with him. You accuse me of looking down on those
 who disagree with me, yet I continually have reasonable and
 decent discussions with those who do. Yet Hardegree turns every
 single disagreement into a trash fest.

 RC> This is evident when nothing is being said negative to him
 RC> about him, with the only sin being a different opinion.

 Which I do not see happening. And this is all a digression to
 divert from your defense of the smear job pulled by Massey.

 RC> The onus isnt solely on Hardegree's shoulders and you know
 RC> it or have you forgotten that it takes two to tango?

 It takes two to tango, it takes one to attack. Dumb comparison
 on your part.

 BK>>  Hardegree contributes nothing but smear and attack. Ross at
 BK>>  least trys to contribute discussion.

 RC> That sword cuts both ways.

 No, it does not. Show where Hardegree participates in discussion
 in any echo where flames are not allowed. Hell, show where
 Hardegree participates in any non-flame discussion in any echo
 with anyone who disagrees with him.

 RC>>> Double Standard??

 BK>>  No, one standard. Stop the attacks and the counter attacks stop.
 BK>>  I have jumped Ross for when I felt he went too far, but I will
 BK>>  not criticize him for tearing into those who attack him.

 RC> You need to look at the entire history, not just last week,
 RC> month or year.

 No, I do not need to. Looking at a year back is more than
 enough. I have seen it for years back. How long does Hardegree
 intend to continue his attacks? Forever? Ross *NEVER* did
 anything to justify that.

 RC> Curing the sore doesnt eliminate the rash.

 Wow! Cliche city! Gonna invent any more?

 RC>>> Just so you are clear, Raymond Yates.. (Jacks brother)

 BK>>  Don't recall him. Either him.

 RC> Then you are senile, I seen you converse with both in the
 RC> WHAT'S_HOT! echo.

 I don't even recall being in the WHAT'S_HOT echo. How long ago
 was that?

 RC>>> Embellishment or exageration is done for personal gain, it

 BK>>  Yeah... and claiming to have worked on A-10s is a real personal
 BK>>  gain. Sure it is.

 RC> Within the scope of a debate in a feeble attempt to impress
 RC> a debating opponent..

 Yeah... a real gain. BFD.

 RC>>> forms the foundations of lies, therefore it does harm
 RC>>> others, but especially the one doing it.

 BK>>  Then let's go into Hulett's embellishments, and see how that
 BK>>  plays out.

 RC> Ok, what has Ed embellished?

 When he claimed understanding of several Radio topics, and when
 he explained how they work he even got that wrong.

 When he pretended to understand military aviation communications
 and operations. When he pretended to understand how the military
 works in general.

 BK>>  And Hulett is dispicable. Which is a whole nother level.

 RC> So you now want to ferment dissension Sauer/Hardegree style
 RC> between you and him?

 He has already done that. He can end it anytime he wants. He is
 the one who has thought he was superior to anyone who dares
 disagree with him. He has displayed that since the very first
 msg of mine he replied to.

 RC> Show me the law that requires people to think and do like
 RC> yourself?

 Show me one single instance where I have shown any inclination
 in that direction.

 OTOH, I can show you exactly that in Hulett's first reply to one
 of my msgs.

 IOW, stop bullshitting and grow some integrity.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Blood and Guts. Your guts, their blood, doesn't make you a hero.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a