Hello Bob!

17 Jun 08 00:19, you wrote to me:

 RC>> Drop this line of crap or leave the echo.

 BK>  I'm sorry, I do not understand. They get to lay all their shit
 BK>  on me constantly, yet I lay a few lines on you and you pop your
 BK>  cork?

Let me spell it out for you, this discussion we are having started with you
asking me to rule on something you thought John Massey had done wrong, when
I went to explain myself you disagreed and started calling me stupid,
hardly a good way to fortify your argument.

As for shit getting laid on you, I seem to note that the river of shit has
a bi-directional flow. Hey Full Duplexed shit!

 BK>  Just change the echo name to the right wing preserve.

or not_as_anal_as_debate_and_pol_inc ?

 RC>> You want to whine about someone not quoting something you
 RC>> wrote, in this case an entire paragraph, yet you want to
 RC>> call me stupid because I am not buying into your side of
 RC>> this argument????

 BK>  No, because you offer the dumbest arguements to justify not
 BK>  enforcing the rule that has been clearly violated.

Here is the rule, one sentence:

*DO NOT* edit any quoted text to change the meaning or context..

When I wrote that rule, I forgot who it was that caused me to write it, but
what I had in mind was having people change words or add words to someones
original text, which was what the initial (triggering ) infraction
entailed.

I can see how you and Wilson will now split hairs and take the word
"edit" to its full literal definition.

However in the rule file just a few lines up is this:

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person of what you are
replying to. Please do not over-quote messages, if you are not
addressing every point the original poster made.

Having had prior experience with you, you do need things spelled out and I
will revise the rule to explicitly state the intent.

 BK>  Anyone who cannot see that deleting the last half of the line
 BK>  changes the meaning must be stupid. Or, perhaps not have English
 BK>  as his first language. That could be the reason.

or perhaps that most soldiers except you dont resent their service at all.

 RC>> Ok, whose service has been demeaned?

 BK>  Mine, Wilson's and Ackley's.

By whom?

and have you forgotten that the service of Helm (deceased), Richardson and
Hardegree, have also been demeaned, mostly by the 65 day wonder?

 RC>> The fact that you served a full commitment is something you
 RC>> should be thanked for and I do thank you, nor do I recall
 RC>> ever slighting your service, have I?

 BK>  I did not say *YOU* did. That original was addressed to Hulett.

You did splatter some paint from your broad brush on me.

 RC>> What have I chicken hawked or are you like Sauer,
 RC>> projecting?

 BK>  Are you eager for the war in Iraq? Do you fully support Bush's
 BK>  war in Iraq? If not, then I will apologize for that. If so, then
 BK>  I will have to ask why you think we should have sent our men and
 BK>  women to fight a war without just cause.

When the war began, I believed the intel and all that..

I do believe that a abrupt chickenshit pullout will only lead to the
creation of Afghanistan II post-1980's style.

Whether or not the war is just or not, too late, we either see it through
or we let the boil fester and be forced to revisit it in the future, see
Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

[aside]

Your political party supports abortion and same sex marriages among other
abominations, there is no requirement for me to believe in them and I have
every right to disagree with them, you have every right to agree with
them..

Your position does not trump mine nor mine yours.

Yet you look down on those whom take or have a position that differs from
your own, now you can see why I detest your party as much as I do, its the
elitist attitiude. This happens with both sides so I am sure you can relate
the same, only from your perspective and not mine?

 RC>> As for me, there was no draft or wars in progress when I
 RC>> was that age.

 BK>  Which means you, and Hulett, did not enlist because there was no
 BK>  draft.

I had no reason to enlist, I presume neither did Ed.

I am sure that there are far more than just Ed and I whom didnt, but go
ahead and focus your rage onto us.

 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.

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

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

 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.

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

 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.

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

 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.

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

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

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

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

That sword cuts both ways.

 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.

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

Curing the sore doesnt eliminate the rash.

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

 BK>  Don't recall him. Either him.

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

 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.

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

 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.

Ok, what has Ed embellished?

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

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

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

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Blogs/Other Places: http://links.cassell.us
... Martin Luther King Jr, was a Republican!
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20070503