Hello Bob!

16 Jun 08 12:31, you wrote to me:

 RC>> You resented your service 40 years ago, not because 40

 BK>  Not only did you sip the stupid sauce, not only did you guzzle
 BK>  the stupid sauce, you are taking it intravenously.

Drop this line of crap or leave the echo.

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

 RC>> I dont think prior to ever knowing about Fidonet, that you
 RC>> expressed discomfort over people like Bill Clinton whom
 RC>> spent Vietnam over in Great Britain not inhaling pot.

 BK>  Bill Clinton did not demean the service of those who did serve.
 BK>  Remember, that was the whole point.

Ok, whose service has been demeaned?

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

 RC>> There does appear to be a gap in your logic, if people
 RC>> believe as you do, you had no regret over serving but if
 RC>> they violate Klahns law by not sharing your idealogy, you
 RC>> do resent it, that does not compute.

 BK>  It doesn't compute because you seem to have some snake ancestry
 BK>  and can't follow a straight line to save your life.

My ancestry reaches back into the old country, to Royalty in Scotland and England.

 RC>> Using my lifetime as a rain gauge, William Jefferson
 RC>> Clinton is the only US President whom did not don the
 RC>> uniform of our military.

 BK>  And that is likely to change, within the rest of your lifetime.
 BK>  And I have repeatedly expressed my support for universal
 BK>  military service, which cannot be made retroactive, but would
 BK>  keep that from happening again. And it is all moot to this
 BK>  discussion.

An all voluntary military is the best way to insure we have people there
whom /want/ to be there, as opposed to people there because the law
mandated them being there. Many of our foreign allies have compulsory
service and I bet their militaries arent worth a shit. Of course for us, if
we have a really big war, we are likely going to have to have a draft?

 RC>> As above, do you resent his deferments?

 BK>  When he becomes a chicken hawk I'll resent it. When he demeans
 BK>  the honorable service of veterans I'll resent it. Until then,
 BK>  it's yours and Hulett's chicken hawk status I resent.

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

 RC>> For your information, I registered for the draft on my 18th
 RC>> birthday, the very day of it AAMOF, at the Merrified Va
 RC>> Post Office.

 BK>  Wow! I am impressed. I do not remember the exact day I
 BK>  registered. I do remember the exact day I enlisted. That is the
 BK>  one that matters.

You sir enlisted to avoid the draft, for had they drafted you, you may not
have had much of a choice and might have ended up in the Army as a grunt
frontline soldier. This is not any attempt to insult you, but lets be
honest here, enlisting allowed you to select both a branch of service and a
specialty close to something you wanted.

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

 RC>> I also re-registered to show my updated address down here
 RC>> in SC, at the onset of Desert Shield/Storm (got a rejection
 RC>> letter for being too old)

 BK>  How old were you? 25? Your behavior gives me reason to suspect
 BK>  you are very young, and childish.

I was 1.5 months old when JFK was shot..

I was born on the 30th day of September in 1963, I have no qualms in
sharing this info.

On 30 September 1981, I registered for the draft at the afore mentioned
Post Office, I was only one month into my Senior Year in HS. I want to say
I drove straight to the PO after I got out of school that day.

When the stuff began winding up for GW1, I re-registered but as noted,
rejected because I was 27.

 BK>>>  Esp the ones who lie to demean the service of those who did
 BK>>>  serve.

 RC>> You mean Ross Sauer's service...

 BK>  No, I mean at least three of us who served a full term. I mean
 BK>  one combat veteran. I mean one career military. And I mean one
 BK>  who served only 4 years. All honorable service, and far above
 BK>  anything you chicken hawks ever did.

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

 RC>> He didnt serve, 42 days of basic followed by 23 days that
 RC>> included:

 RC>> Probably a day or so of leave

 RC>> Travel time to his specialty school

 RC>> Getting injured.

 RC>> Treated for injury

 RC>> Being processed out.

 RC>> He caught (and catches) this grief because he embellished
 RC>> his service to score points in a debate that didnt require
 RC>> said embellishment.

 BK>  Not if you accept your timeline above. And he catches grief
 BK>  because he dares to dispute with chicken hawks. They screech,
 BK>  but have no claws.

You are the one saying those without service shouldnt be critical of those
who are with, I submit to you that Sauer's position is no better in
contrast to the angst you have over the entire topic, now why arent you
setting the boy straight?

Remember this whole argument over military service has roots with Sauer,
tell him to STFU, perhaps issue a mea culpa over his embellishments and
this all will wind itself down.

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

Double Standard??

 RC>> and whom he embellished it to was not anyone you yourself
 RC>> would have ever considered a idealogical enemy.

 BK>  BFD.

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

 RC>> If it is a bad thing to degrade military service, See
 RC>> Kerry, then it is equally bad to embellish or exagerate
 RC>> it...

 BK>  Well, let's see, Kerry didn't degrade military service, he
 BK>  earned his medals in combat, well above anything you even
 BK>  considered doing. Then he came back and told the truth, which
 BK>  has been twisted into a lie by right wingers ever since. See
 BK>  "Tiger Force", you fool.

and then tossed his medals..

But he did serve.

 BK>  And no, it's not equally bad to embellish or exagerate it. That
 BK>  doesn't strike out at others, degrading it does.

Embellishment or exageration is done for personal gain, it forms the
foundations of lies, therefore it does harm others, but especially the one
doing it.

 RC>> If someone came in here having attended one semester of law
 RC>> school and then called themself a Lawyer, I'd call them out
 RC>> on it as well.

 BK>  Yet you don't call out Mimi who claims to have been trained in
 BK>  psychology, gives out hokey diagnosis, and not only is not
 BK>  licensed, but won't even admit there is such a thing as a
 BK>  license for psychologists. IOW, your lines above are nothing but
 BK>  chicken hawk shit.

Has she claimed to be a Psychologist?

In the store, about 1.5 years ago, we ran a sale on a laptop computer, $399
flat out, no mail in rebates, pay sales tax and go. This was a Sunday, we
started out with 15 of them (Nearly 1000 stores in chain, maybe 15 each
store)

The Ad stated:

Quantities limited

Limit One

No rainchecks

All our ads also state we have the right to limit qty's.

Had a customer whom came in with his girlfriend, wanted 2 of them, I said I
could only sell him one, I told him that since I knew they were together I
couldnt do it..

"He puffed out his chest" and told me he was a Lawyer and that
the law was on his side, unfortunately he forgot that his girlfriend had
already told me that he was only beginning Law School.

Is he your type of guy?

==
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