Steveo wrote:

You like Mark for sex..you hump his leg for hours and hours a day in front
of a monitor. Isn't Todd getting jealous, or do you still hump his leg too?

Naaaaah...You have me confused with your daddy.

Steve, K4YZ

Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in
:

snip
abu graib is another topic than frank and so

The soldiers at Abu Gharib shold have REPORTED THE INFRACTIONS via
the chain of command.

no they should have refused to prefrom them and then informed the
chain of comand

the "orders" were unlawfull and they should have had the gut to refuse
them


Quite right. The oath requires you to perform any -LEGAL- order given
to you by your superiors. This was the issue during the Iran-Contra
scam when Ollie claimed he was just following orders and didn't care
if his actions were legal or not (although I'm sure he knew they were
illegal). That's blind obedience and it's wrong.


even were he tried and found
guilty (it being found that the orders were not illegal) thais does not
prove he was lying or in any way violated his oath or stole his
rightfull pay

Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty!

Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED!

your source?


Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first
court-martial and so was never tried.


snip
Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior
trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15
proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle
the incident at the lowest echelon.

Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of
something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times


And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction. I forced a
summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a
matter of record.


snip
He WAS found guilty.

not according to him
not after apeal was it but that does not count with you


For once Dudly is right. There were no appeals and both convictions
stand. The vindication of my second infraction was the result of a
seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after
my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to
have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by
the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence,
and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant
to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an
appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my
discharge upgraded to Honorable.


snip
USMC attitudes on this are that if you let those four guys carry
that fifth guy off the battlefield, there will be five guys to worry
about later. Better to kill them all now than to ahve to face them a
second time.


The USMC attitude on this is simple: "Accomplish the Mission".


snip
he has expressed his opinion you did not serve holding that opinion
even if it may be contary to fact is not a lie

Sure it's a lie.

nope it is an opinion Frank holds and stets that he doesn't believe
you sered

that is no lie


Oh, I'm sure he served alright. And I'm sure he served all of 18 years
as he claimed. But I'm also sure that his time was spent almost
entirely in garrison, that nothing on his record is outstanding, that
he probably got a few Page 11 entries, and that his discharge was not
an honorable retirement but a general discharge, probably for medical
reasons (suggested by his current career in the medical field, which,
according to statistics gathered by psychologists, happens to be the
preferred occupational field for hypochondriacs). In other words, he
served 18 years as a sick-bay commando. Certainly nothing to be proud
of, nothing to brag about, and nothing he will ever publically admit.
Hence his silence about his "military career". And the epitath that
will be imprinted on his tombstone will be, "I Told You I Was Sick",
just like the one I saw on a PBS special last night.


Just let Dudly keep running his mouth -- the more he talks the more he
proves that he's a socially isolated misfit with serious psychological
issues. He's like a cat in a box: shake the box and he thrashes around
for a while. Let him calm down then shake the box again. Heck, that's
better entertainment than anything on TV!!!







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:49:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in
:

snip
abu graib is another topic than frank and so

The soldiers at Abu Gharib shold have REPORTED THE INFRACTIONS via
the chain of command.

no they should have refused to prefrom them and then informed the
chain of comand

the "orders" were unlawfull and they should have had the gut to refuse
them


Quite right. The oath requires you to perform any -LEGAL- order given
to you by your superiors. This was the issue during the Iran-Contra
scam when Ollie claimed he was just following orders and didn't care
if his actions were legal or not (although I'm sure he knew they were
illegal). That's blind obedience and it's wrong.

and dangerous as well


even were he tried and found
guilty (it being found that the orders were not illegal) thais does not
prove he was lying or in any way violated his oath or stole his
rightfull pay

Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty!

Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED!

your source?


Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first
court-martial and so was never tried.


snip
Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior
trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15
proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle
the incident at the lowest echelon.

Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of
something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times


And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction. I forced a
summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a
matter of record.


snip
He WAS found guilty.

not according to him
not after apeal was it but that does not count with you


For once Dudly is right. There were no appeals and both convictions
stand. The vindication of my second infraction was the result of a
seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after
my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to
have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by
the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence,
and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant
to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an
appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my
discharge upgraded to Honorable.

well thanks for clearing it up Id say it was an appeal of sorts but
then try not to quible when I can


snip
USMC attitudes on this are that if you let those four guys carry
that fifth guy off the battlefield, there will be five guys to worry
about later. Better to kill them all now than to ahve to face them a
second time.


The USMC attitude on this is simple: "Accomplish the Mission".


snip
he has expressed his opinion you did not serve holding that opinion
even if it may be contary to fact is not a lie

Sure it's a lie.

nope it is an opinion Frank holds and stets that he doesn't believe
you sered

that is no lie


Oh, I'm sure he served alright. And I'm sure he served all of 18 years
as he claimed. But I'm also sure that his time was spent almost
entirely in garrison, that nothing on his record is outstanding, that
he probably got a few Page 11 entries, and that his discharge was not
an honorable retirement but a general discharge, probably for medical
reasons (suggested by his current career in the medical field, which,
according to statistics gathered by psychologists, happens to be the
preferred occupational field for hypochondriacs).
he claims that his discharge is medical

he also denies that it was for a physical cuase which leaves .....

In other words, he
served 18 years as a sick-bay commando. Certainly nothing to be proud
of, nothing to brag about, and nothing he will ever publically admit.
Hence his silence about his "military career". And the epitath that
will be imprinted on his tombstone will be, "I Told You I Was Sick",
just like the one I saw on a PBS special last night.

so your thought run pretty close to mine if not in the same mold

interesting as I suspect we are rather different but we share the
noton that at least when lie under our tombstones an eitaff can read
"well at least we lived out lives"


Just let Dudly keep running his mouth -- the more he talks the more he
proves that he's a socially isolated misfit with serious psychological
issues. He's like a cat in a box: shake the box and he thrashes around
for a while. Let him calm down then shake the box again. Heck, that's
better entertainment than anything on TV!!!

Forgiveme if I wish I could call you liar on that one







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Group: rec.radio.cb

Date: Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 4:20am (EDT-3)

From: (K4YZ)
Steveo wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote:
nobodys_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
cut
Get a room.
_
*
*******I was going to but your sister's got the

crabs again and your mom can't control her

gag reflex like she used to.

Steve, K4YZ


....said the officer of the Civil Air Patrol. Talk about conduct
unbecoming.

Steveo wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote:
Steveo wrote:

You like Mark for sex..you hump his leg for hours and hours a day in
front of a monitor. Isn't Todd getting jealous, or do you still hump
his leg too?

Naaaaah...You have me confused with your daddy.

Steve, K4YZ

I was going to but your sister's got the crabs again and your mom
can't control her gag reflex like she used to.

Steve, K4YZ

So let me get this straight. You want to bang my mom, sister, and dad?

I see you have the same comprehension problems as Markie does. At
least you can spell well enough to not have to muddle through your
replies.

What the #### is wrong with you, STEVEN J ROBESON K4YZ ?

Getting profane, self-righteous "get a room" comments from punks
like you who is what is wrong. If the cross posting was bothering you,
you could have either (1) killfiled the address (2) ASKED to get the
groups deleted, or (3) just ignored it like I do OTHER cross-posts.

But you snapped in with a smart alec quip, you got one back.

Even-Stevens.

Steve, K4YZ

On 28 Oct 2005 02:05:27 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:


Steveo wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote:
Steveo wrote:

You like Mark for sex..you hump his leg for hours and hours a day in
front of a monitor. Isn't Todd getting jealous, or do you still hump
his leg too?

Naaaaah...You have me confused with your daddy.

Steve, K4YZ

I was going to but your sister's got the crabs again and your mom
can't control her gag reflex like she used to.

Steve, K4YZ

So let me get this straight. You want to bang my mom, sister, and dad?

I see you have the same comprehension problems as Markie does. At
least you can spell well enough to not have to muddle through your
replies.

What the #### is wrong with you, STEVEN J ROBESON K4YZ ?

Getting profane, self-righteous "get a room" comments from punks
like you who is what is wrong. If the cross posting was bothering you,
you could have either (1) killfiled the address (2) ASKED to get the
groups deleted, or (3) just ignored it like I do OTHER cross-posts.

But you snapped in with a smart alec quip, you got one back.

Even-Stevens.

Steve, K4YZ


Dickhead. Quit your cross-posting, and go back to your nice little newsgroup. If
you need the attention like K1MAN, I suggest getting in touch with him and
becoming friends, so you both can bring down the government all by yourself.

Vinnie S.

K4YZ wrote:
Steveo wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote:
Steveo wrote:

You like Mark for sex..you hump his leg for hours and hours a day in
front of a monitor. Isn't Todd getting jealous, or do you still hump
his leg too?

Naaaaah...You have me confused with your daddy.

Steve, K4YZ

I was going to but your sister's got the crabs again and your mom
can't control her gag reflex like she used to.

Steve, K4YZ

So let me get this straight. You want to bang my mom, sister, and dad?

I see you have the same comprehension problems as Markie does. At
least you can spell well enough to not have to muddle through your
replies.

What the #### is wrong with you, STEVEN J ROBESON K4YZ ?

Getting profane, self-righteous "get a room" comments from punks

why are you only and Dan allowed to be profane ( or do you share that
with the MMM)
BUZZ hypocrite alarm

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in
:

Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty!

Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED!

your source?

Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first
court-martial and so was never tried.

Yes, Frankie...TRIED. You had the benefit of representation,
stood before the court, and had your opportunity to say your piece.

snip
Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior
trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15
proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle
the incident at the lowest echelon.

Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of
something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times

And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction.

Ahhhhh...Let's MINIMALIZE it and call it an "infraction".

You are not charged with "infractions" at a court martial. It's an
"offense".

I forced a
summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a
matter of record.

It would have been a matter of record in an Artcle 15 proceeding,
too.

Dumb, Frankie...really, REALLY dumb.

snip
He WAS found guilty.

not according to him
not after apeal was it but that does not count with you

For once Dudly is right.

No "for once", Frankie. I've had you nailed for weeks now. Sorry
it's made things a bit uncomfortable for you.

There were no appeals and both convictions
stand. The vindication of my second infraction....(SNIP)

"Vindication" only in that you allow yourself that "warm fuzzy"
for it. It has no legal bearing.

And it was your second OFFENSE..."infractions" are dealt with at
Article 15. You, by your own admission, blew that off.

(UNSNIP)...was the result of a
seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after
my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to
have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by
the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence,
and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant
to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an
appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my
discharge upgraded to Honorable.

See..that's where we part ways, Frankie...My service never had to
be UPGRADED to Honorable...It was that way all along.


snip
USMC attitudes on this are that if you let those four guys carry
that fifth guy off the battlefield, there will be five guys to worry
about later. Better to kill them all now than to have to face them a
second time.

On 29 Oct 2005 01:55:00 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote in
.com:


Frank Gilliland wrote:
Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in
:

Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty!

Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED!

your source?

Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first
court-martial and so was never tried.

Yes, Frankie...TRIED. You had the benefit of representation,
stood before the court, and had your opportunity to say your piece.


Wrong. A trial is used to determine guilt. I pleaded guilty so there
was no trial; i.e, I was never "tried". You couldn't learn that much
with a quick google search? That's pathetic.


snip
Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior
trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15
proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle
the incident at the lowest echelon.

Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of
something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times

And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction.

Ahhhhh...Let's MINIMALIZE it and call it an "infraction".

You are not charged with "infractions" at a court martial. It's an
"offense".


Call it a 'crime' if you want -- makes no difference to me.


I forced a
summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a
matter of record.

It would have been a matter of record in an Artcle 15 proceeding,
too.


Wrong again, Dudly. The proceedings and evidence are not recorded for
an Article 15, only the 'crime' and punishment.


Dumb, Frankie...really, REALLY dumb.


Well, maybe you should take that up with the attorney who was
appointed to my case and made that recommendation.


snip
He WAS found guilty.

not according to him
not after apeal was it but that does not count with you

For once Dudly is right.

No "for once", Frankie. I've had you nailed for weeks now. Sorry
it's made things a bit uncomfortable for you.


Whatever you say, Dudly.


There were no appeals and both convictions
stand. The vindication of my second infraction....(SNIP)

"Vindication" only in that you allow yourself that "warm fuzzy"
for it. It has no legal bearing.


Wrong yet again, Dudly: It had enough "legal bearing" to change the
status of my discharge.


And it was your second OFFENSE..."infractions" are dealt with at
Article 15. You, by your own admission, blew that off.


More semantics..... gee, I'm devastated. Really. And I mean that.


(UNSNIP)...was the result of a
seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after
my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to
have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by
the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence,
and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant
to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an
appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my
discharge upgraded to Honorable.

See..that's where we part ways, Frankie...My service never had to
be UPGRADED to Honorable...It was that way all along.


Uh-huh. Sure thing, Dudly. That's why you claimed to have been
discharged for medical reasons, huh? Probably because you are in the
early stages of Alzheimer's......


snip


Yet another snip-job -- too bad you can't address your failures.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 01:55:00 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote in
.com:


Frank Gilliland wrote:
Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in
:

Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty!

Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED!

your source?

Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first
court-martial and so was never tried.

Yes, Frankie...TRIED. You had the benefit of representation,
stood before the court, and had your opportunity to say your piece.

Wrong. A trial is used to determine guilt. I pleaded guilty so there
was no trial; i.e, I was never "tried". You couldn't learn that much
with a quick google search? That's pathetic.

What's "pathetic" is your attempts to minimize the fact that
you're a disgraced, courtmartialed EX Marine, who's only
reconcilliation with having BEEN a Marine is to try an undermine
others.

Basically, you're a punk, Frankie.

snip
Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior
trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15
proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle
the incident at the lowest echelon.

Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of
something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times

And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction.

Ahhhhh...Let's MINIMALIZE it and call it an "infraction".

You are not charged with "infractions" at a court martial. It's an
"offense".

Call it a 'crime' if you want -- makes no difference to me.

Gee...Above you try and "teach" about legal fine points and here
you want to dismiss them...

Can't have your Kate and Edith too, Frankie.

I forced a
summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a
matter of record.

It would have been a matter of record in an Artcle 15 proceeding,
too.

Wrong again, Dudly. The proceedings and evidence are not recorded for
an Article 15, only the 'crime' and punishment.

Wrong. Idiot.

Dumb, Frankie...really, REALLY dumb.

Well, maybe you should take that up with the attorney who was
appointed to my case and made that recommendation.

And all the attorney COULD do was RECOMMEND.

YOU were the one who had to make the DECISION, Frankie.

Don't try and slide out from under YOUR mistakes, frankie.

snip
He WAS found guilty.

not according to him
not after apeal was it but that does not count with you

For once Dudly is right.

No "for once", Frankie. I've had you nailed for weeks now. Sorry
it's made things a bit uncomfortable for you.

Whatever you say, Dudly.


There were no appeals and both convictions
stand. The vindication of my second infraction....(SNIP)

"Vindication" only in that you allow yourself that "warm fuzzy"
for it. It has no legal bearing.

Wrong yet again, Dudly: It had enough "legal bearing" to change the
status of my discharge.

Perhaps. But the CONVICTIONS still stand. Convictions that may
keep you from federal contracts and/or security clearances should you
need one for contract work in the future.

And it was your second OFFENSE..."infractions" are dealt with at
Article 15. You, by your own admission, blew that off.

More semantics..... gee, I'm devastated. Really. And I mean that.

There's no "semantics" to it, Frankie. And I could care less
about how "devastated" you are. Your lack of Honor and honesty are
"devastating" enough. The Marines did the best possible thing with
you...sent ya packin'.

(UNSNIP)...was the result of a
seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after
my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to
have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by
the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence,
and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant
to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an
appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my
discharge upgraded to Honorable.

See..that's where we part ways, Frankie...My service never had to
be UPGRADED to Honorable...It was that way all along.

Uh-huh. Sure thing, Dudly. That's why you claimed to have been
discharged for medical reasons, huh? Probably because you are in the
early stages of Alzheimer's......

Your lack of grasp of the facts is hillarious.
..
snip

Yet another snip-job -- too bad you can't address your failures.

Poor redirect to others "failures" in order to mitigate your own
humiliation.

Lame.

Steve, K4YZ