From: on Nov 17, 4:31 pm


wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 20:30

Poor redirect. Strong on "victimization" twist.

Dudly been watching Law shows, trying to pick up their lingo?

Are we now going to be treated to "judge" Dudly and ANOTHER
fictitious "career?" :-)

Guessing game. Match the Quote with the author.

"Your Honor, I STRENUOUSLY Object!"

"I stand on the wall...."

"I served in other, unmentionable ways..."

Choices: Steve, Steve, and Jim.

HAHAHAHAH...answers are in the same order. That's a no-brainer.

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

Jimmie Noserve no comment on this. Jimmie pays ALL of his
own clothes out of his allowance. He still has his baby
shoes and those are busy, busy stepping right along.

wrote:

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

It doesn't matter when the CURRENT regulation was updated.

A quick review of the order suffix indicates it's a much-ammended
order.

A five minute phone call could verify my original statements.

Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task.

Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

It doesn't matter when the CURRENT regulation was updated.

A quick review of the order suffix indicates it's a much-ammended
order.

A five minute phone call could verify my original statements.

Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task.

Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve would rather have a tantrum that dig out his own 1974 copy of the
regulation.

Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg???

Sumptin wrong there.

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

It doesn't matter when the CURRENT regulation was updated.

A quick review of the order suffix indicates it's a much-ammended
order.

A five minute phone call could verify my original statements.

Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task.

Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve would rather have a tantrum that dig out his own 1974 copy of the
regulation.

WHAT "1974" copy of ANY regulation?

Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg???

I am suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure he had it "right there",
Brain...

Sumptin wrong there.

Why?

The purpose of the whole drill was to get you to find out from
uncontestable sources that my information was accurate. Hans'
presenting of the order, howevr well intentioned, harpooned that.

None-the-less, Frankie's rant was shot all to be-jeebers.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

It doesn't matter when the CURRENT regulation was updated.

A quick review of the order suffix indicates it's a much-ammended
order.

A five minute phone call could verify my original statements.

Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task.

Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve would rather have a tantrum that dig out his own 1974 copy of the
regulation.

WHAT "1974" copy of ANY regulation?

Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg???

I am suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure he had it "right there",
Brain...

Sumptin wrong there.

Why?

The purpose of the whole drill was to get you to find out from
uncontestable sources that my information was accurate.

No need. Given your propensity for lying, it's a safe bet that you
were wrong again.

Hans'
presenting of the order, howevr well intentioned, harpooned that.

None-the-less, Frankie's rant was shot all to be-jeebers.

Steve, K4YZ

Only Hans was suckered into playing your "drill," harpoon and all.
Reminds me of the GNR episode in "The Dead Pool."

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

The purpose of the whole drill was to get you to find out from
uncontestable sources that my information was accurate.

No need. Given your propensity for lying, it's a safe bet that you
were wrong again.

Bad logic, Brian.

Why would I direct you to a source that was uncorruptable?

If I HAD been 'wrong', I would have given you eternal bragging
right, now wouldn't I...?!?!

Hans'
presenting of the order, howevr well intentioned, harpooned that.

None-the-less, Frankie's rant was shot all to be-jeebers.

Only Hans was suckered into playing your "drill," harpoon and all.
Reminds me of the GNR episode in "The Dead Pool."

Hans wasn't "suckered" into anything.

His information was dead on accurate.

And you now have the resources with which to finish the job,
Brian...It's just up to you whether you're going to do it or not...

You can do it, which will only serve to verify what I've been
saying all along...GOD FORBID it would deprive you of the opportunities
to call me a liar.

Or you can NOT do it, and then waffle along with all sorts of
"It's not my job" or "I bet you're lying anyway" excuses and the rant
wars go on.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

The purpose of the whole drill was to get you to find out from
uncontestable sources that my information was accurate.

No need. Given your propensity for lying, it's a safe bet that you
were wrong again.

Bad logic, Brian.

Why would I direct you to a source that was uncorruptable?

If I HAD been 'wrong', I would have given you eternal bragging
right, now wouldn't I...?!?!

Steve, I guess that's the main difference between you and me. I need
no bragging rights.

Hans'
presenting of the order, howevr well intentioned, harpooned that.

None-the-less, Frankie's rant was shot all to be-jeebers.

Only Hans was suckered into playing your "drill," harpoon and all.
Reminds me of the GNR episode in "The Dead Pool."

Hans wasn't "suckered" into anything.

His information was dead on accurate.

"Back to the Future" accurate.

Unfortunately, you don't have a time machine.

And you now have the resources with which to finish the job,
Brian...It's just up to you whether you're going to do it or not...

You can do it, which will only serve to verify what I've been
saying all along...GOD FORBID it would deprive you of the opportunities
to call me a liar.

Or you can NOT do it, and then waffle along with all sorts of
"It's not my job" or "I bet you're lying anyway" excuses and the rant
wars go on.

Steve, K4YZ

It's not my job to prove you right. Hans tried, bless his heart.

But you want your internet arguments to go on and on and on. All you
had to do was give up some information about your claims of seven
hostile actions five years ago, but no. Now after years of bad
information about everything else, you want someone else to prove you
right about uniform issue?

Good luck.

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

The purpose of the whole drill was to get you to find out from
uncontestable sources that my information was accurate.

No need. Given your propensity for lying, it's a safe bet that you
were wrong again.

Bad logic, Brian.

Why would I direct you to a source that was uncorruptable?

because it is an uncoporatble source that is neded to make your case

If I HAD been 'wrong', I would have given you eternal bragging
right, now wouldn't I...?!?!

meaning you don't have access to any such source

Hans'
presenting of the order, howevr well intentioned, harpooned that.

None-the-less, Frankie's rant was shot all to be-jeebers.

Only Hans was suckered into playing your "drill," harpoon and all.
Reminds me of the GNR episode in "The Dead Pool."

Hans wasn't "suckered" into anything.

His information was dead on accurate.

And you now have the resources with which to finish the job,
Brian...It's just up to you whether you're going to do it or not...

You can do it, which will only serve to verify what I've been
saying all along...GOD FORBID it would deprive you of the opportunities
to call me a liar.

Or you can NOT do it, and then waffle along with all sorts of
"It's not my job" or "I bet you're lying anyway" excuses and the rant
wars go on.

Steve, K4YZ

From: on Sat 19 Nov 2005 05:54


K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

It doesn't matter when the CURRENT regulation was updated.

Right...it will always apply to Dudly's alleged time (13 to 31
years ago) if it supports Dudly's claims.

A quick review of the order suffix indicates it's a much-ammended
order.

So...it "applies" and thus "supports" Dudly even if it didn't.

A five minute phone call could verify my original statements.

Phone call to whom? :-)

Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task.

Dialling fingers are busy poking holes in Dudly's "arguments." :-)

Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD.

SOP for Dudly...when unwilling to stick to an "argument" he
resorts to name-calling.



Steve would rather have a tantrum that dig out his own 1974 copy of the
regulation.

If and only if he had one...:-)

Imposters rarely have "evidence" at hand to "support" them. They
love to snow-job others into thinking they were actaully there.
Standard practice of con artists and used car salesmen.

When unable to verify his supposed existance, he tries the
"outraged" ploy. Neat misdirection from the thread operating
on several levels:

1. It demonstrates his "toughness", as if he really was what
he say.

2. It obscures the original thread in order to garner emotional
support from the few like-thinkers around.

3. It misdirects the thread in an attempt to get his challengers
on the defensive; further back-and-forth now concerns his
puerile insults.

Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg???

Sumptin wrong there.

Captain Code works in mysterious ways...

wrote:
From: on Sat 19 Nov 2005 05:54

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

It doesn't matter when the CURRENT regulation was updated.

Right...it will always apply to Dudly's alleged time (13 to 31
years ago) if it supports Dudly's claims.

Not.

A quick review of the order suffix indicates it's a much-ammended
order.

So...it "applies" and thus "supports" Dudly even if it didn't.

Not.

A five minute phone call could verify my original statements.

Phone call to whom? :-)

The National Command Authority.

Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task.

Dialling fingers are busy poking holes in Dudly's "arguments." :-)

Has Steve ever been able to provide a straight-forward answer on
anything?

Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD.

SOP for Dudly...when unwilling to stick to an "argument" he
resorts to name-calling.

That was the "old" Steve. He's a new man now.

Steve would rather have a tantrum that dig out his own 1974 copy of the
regulation.

If and only if he had one...:-)

Imposters rarely have "evidence" at hand to "support" them. They
love to snow-job others into thinking they were actaully there.
Standard practice of con artists and used car salesmen.

When unable to verify his supposed existance, he tries the
"outraged" ploy. Neat misdirection from the thread operating
on several levels:

1. It demonstrates his "toughness", as if he really was what
he say.

2. It obscures the original thread in order to garner emotional
support from the few like-thinkers around.

3. It misdirects the thread in an attempt to get his challengers
on the defensive; further back-and-forth now concerns his
puerile insults.

Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg???

Sumptin wrong there.

Captain Code works in mysterious ways...



I sure wish I had the 2005 Accounting and Finance regulations in-place
when I served.