K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote
The
Army found that out during the Battle of the Bulge...where every
soldier, regardless of MOS, were suddenly IN "battle." Ever
since the U.S. Army has made it a point to continue basic battle
training long after soldiers have finished basic training.

And your point is?

All sorts of people in all sorts of jobs face danger every day, Len.

The electric wires don't put themselves up, and when a storm knocks
out the power, the crews don't get to wait for a sunny day to fix them.

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Jim,

Lens point is that every serviceman and servicewoman in uniform serves with the
understanding that their very life is pledged, at the very real risk of armed
conflict, to serve their fellow man, commonly for material rewards less than
that enjoyed by an Assistant Shift Manager at your local Burger King.

I realize that, Hans, and I honor that pledge and that service. I
apologize if anyone was offended. That was not my intent.

But Len tries to make it sound like no one other than military service
ever faces any danger in their job.

Jim, service men and women are instruments of National Policy. They
face danger defending the Constitution of the United States. And many
if not most wish that their civilian leaders would take the
Constitution a little more seriously.

So when the going gets rough, are they free to quit and walk away? A
lineman can. A policeman can. A fireman can.

When their spouses and children ask when are they going to come home,
and there is no answer?

What is wrong with you to suggest that it's even remotely the same?

In the past (and probably in the future) Len and I have found all sorts of
reasons to disagree, but on this issue I come down four-square on hisside.
Comparing that pledge which Len, Brian, and several other here took, to the
risks "suffered" by an electric company linemen or a construction worker is mean
spirited and unbecoming.

I did not mean to sound that way. Again, if it sounded that way, I
apologize.

Jim, if you felt an "apology" was warranted, then bravo for you.

However if you get into the habit of "apologizing" everytime
someone doesn't like your "tone" or how it MIGHT sound, then you just
spend your whole life apologizing.

Spending your life with your tail between your legs is no way to
live.

Clancy inspired bravado is no way, either.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Now there's someone to take advice from!

Jim, I'm sorry that you don't "get it." You don't get it because you
"served in other ways." Like your constant harping on Len about
professional radio not being the moral equivalent of amateur radio,
your "serving in other ways" isn't even remotely equivalent to military
service, even if you wished it were so. As it stands, you wouldn't
know what to wish for even if that wish were granted.

wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"


Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please
provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you
claim I wrote.

wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"


Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please
provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you
claim I wrote.

At's OK. I'll take your word for it that not only haven't you served,
but that you haven't "served in other ways."

From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm


wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004; January 13, February 10, May 25 2005. shrug


All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please
provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you
claim I wrote.

At's OK. I'll take your word for it that not only haven't you served,
but that you haven't "served in other ways."

Jimmie "serves" ceasar salads at the O-club on Satiddy nights.
[hail ceasar...]


Jimmie loves to re-argue, re-argue, re-argue old, old postings'
content, perhaps hoping to THIS TIME being able to win one...:-)


Jimmie be the "silent majority" type of wannabe...or maybe a
Better-Than? He is "superior" and without fault in whatever he
does. Just ask him and he will confirm that.


Give Jimmie some slack(s). He might be organizing a charity
group in memory of fallen hippie linemen who tye-dyed on active
duty in the 60s?

wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm

wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004; January 13, February 10, May 25 2005. shrug

Len, thanks for serving up the specific dates of his attempts to claim
some kind of honors, but he's just not worth my time.

All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please
provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you
claim I wrote.

At's OK. I'll take your word for it that not only haven't you served,
but that you haven't "served in other ways."

Jimmie "serves" ceasar salads at the O-club on Satiddy nights.
[hail ceasar...]

He reminds me of Madeliene Al(most)bright saying that America no longer
needs the "Marine Culture." Woefully uninformed. She's not worthy to
preside over a barrel-burning detail for our deployed troops.

Jimmie loves to re-argue, re-argue, re-argue old, old postings'
content, perhaps hoping to THIS TIME being able to win one...:-)

Hmmmm? OK, if he wants to reargue what he says he didn't say...

Jimmie be the "silent majority" type of wannabe...or maybe a
Better-Than? He is "superior" and without fault in whatever he
does. Just ask him and he will confirm that.

It's funny. A few years ago, I was surrounded by people serving in the
military, and it almost appeared that everyone did. Most of us had
been to the desert, to Honduras, to Korea, etc, etc, etc.

Now that I'm out here with the "civils," its eye-opening and shocking.


Give Jimmie some slack(s). He might be organizing a charity
group in memory of fallen hippie linemen who tye-dyed on active
duty in the 60s?



If Jim want's to make some legitimate claim to how he served, then he
can make it. If not then he can go to his grave regretting how he
misspent his youth or how he "served in other ways" that are the
equivalent of military service in his mind. Sad.

From: on Dec 10, 1:14 pm

wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm
wrote:
wrote:


Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004; January 13, February 10, May 25 2005. shrug

Len, thanks for serving up the specific dates of his attempts to claim
some kind of honors, but he's just not worth my time.

Agreed. Jimmie MUST have quotes that are EXACT and WORD-FOR-
WORD. Amazing. He can't understand that other people read
the entirety of his boasting claims of doing more than others
and doing it oh-so-much-better.

At the very same time he tries to dump on everyone who
disagrees with HIM, be they veterans or not. "Patriotism?"
Hardly.


All my postings to newsgroups are in Google. Please
provide a link to the posting(s) where I wrote what you
claim I wrote.

At's OK. I'll take your word for it that not only haven't you served,
but that you haven't "served in other ways."

Jimmie "serves" ceasar salads at the O-club on Satiddy nights.
[hail ceasar...]

He reminds me of Madeliene Al(most)bright saying that America no longer
needs the "Marine Culture." Woefully uninformed. She's not worthy to
preside over a barrel-burning detail for our deployed troops.

Neither is Jimmie.

Maddie WAS Secretary of State at one time, though. Wonder if
Jimmie could wear a nice dress and heels as Condi's replacement?


Jimmie loves to re-argue, re-argue, re-argue old, old postings'
content, perhaps hoping to THIS TIME being able to win one...:-)

Hmmmm? OK, if he wants to reargue what he says he didn't say...

Brian, any quote attributed to him MUST be WORD-FOR-WORD or
"he never said any such thing."

He changes his boundary conditions to put himself in the "right"
anywhichwayhecan.


Jimmie be the "silent majority" type of wannabe...or maybe a
Better-Than? He is "superior" and without fault in whatever he
does. Just ask him and he will confirm that.

It's funny. A few years ago, I was surrounded by people serving in the
military, and it almost appeared that everyone did. Most of us had
been to the desert, to Honduras, to Korea, etc, etc, etc.

Now that I'm out here with the "civils," its eye-opening and shocking.

I understand. Been there, done that. Of course, I did it far
further back than most, but I never forgot it.

A great problem with these "civils" is that, not being anywhere
close to danger themselves, everything military is like a movie
or TV show. All the actors come alive after the show is over
and go on to play other parts in other shows later. Ain't so
in the military. Once dead, completely dead. No SAG or SEG
rules about resurrection for them. The military's environment
is not a comfortable living room or an air conditioned theater.

Jimmie said "I was 'safe' in Tokyo." The Russkies "couldn't
reach us with aircraft" or some dumb thing like that. Had he
seen some rather elaborate plans for shelters and op-orders on
what to do when the crap entered the cyclone, he would have
probably complained about excess spending or equivalent. In the
1950s the Russkies DID have various delivery systems for
special weapons. Jimmie doesn't want to believe that. Being
safe in his crib in the yew-knighted-states, nobody was going to
nuke HIM! :-) Ergo, nobody was going to nuke anyone. He went
out of his way trying to barf on those of us who were OUT THERE
one helluvalot closer to danger than HE ever was.

Be that as it may, most of the vets I've talked to who served
off-shore were both cognizant of danger close-at-hand but also
optimistic as to their survival. The vast majority of us
survived and came back to the "civils," uncivil though some of
them were.

My outfit did communications. We did it well, got two
Presidential Unit Citations for it while I was there. We did
communications of the most direct means possible then, didn't
play at it as some amateur did with the "NTS" and their
"official radiograms." At the same time we had to keep up with
ordinary soldiering skills, summed up by the primary mission
phrase "...to close with, and destroy, the enemy."

I like to think that the guys in my outfit could, if needs be,
carry out their primary mission as soldiers. None of us
wanted any "test" of whether or not we were. I thank God
there wasn't any. Braggarts and hero-wannabes say the opposite,
that they could/did "fight" anyone (with the jaw-bone of an
ass...their own). See hero of seven hostile actions, Dudly
the Imposter.


Give Jimmie some slack(s). He might be organizing a charity
group in memory of fallen hippie linemen who tye-dyed on active
duty in the 60s?

If Jim want's to make some legitimate claim to how he served, then he
can make it.

Hmphhh...the O-clubs still need waiters. Burger King still
needs servers.

If not then he can go to his grave regretting how he
misspent his youth or how he "served in other ways" that are the
equivalent of military service in his mind. Sad.

He knows no better. He will never allow himself to be with
fault. Ergo, he is always right...others are always "wrong"
if they disagree with him.

Lately, Jimmie has become an "expert" on regional real estate
and urban zoning. He "knows exactly" all about every situation
involving those two areas. He made some weird analogies to
opinions I've expressed, analogies that have NO relationship
whatsoever. That was all geared to make me look "bad,"
essential to make him "look good" and be without fault. It
didn't work, was incorrect...but Jimmie thinks it did and
Jimmie is the only one that counts. shrug

wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 1:14 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm
wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004; January 13, February 10, May 25 2005. shrug

Len, thanks for serving up the specific dates of his attempts to claim
some kind of honors, but he's just not worth my time.

Agreed. Jimmie MUST have quotes that are EXACT and WORD-FOR-
WORD. Amazing.

Len and Brian,

If you are going to give direct quotes of what someone allegedly wrote,
you
should use the exact words they wrote. That's what "direct quote"
means.

He can't understand that other people read
the entirety of his boasting claims of doing more than others
and doing it oh-so-much-better.

The fact is that you were both shown to be wrong and now you're
trying to tapdance away from the fact that you misguoted me.

Lately, Jimmie has become an "expert" on regional real estate
and urban zoning.

I make no claim to being an expert at anything, Len.

But I do understand what happened in your neighborhood.

He "knows exactly" all about every situation
involving those two areas.

You and some of your neighbors tried to control what was built
on a piece of land you didn't own. You wanted the standards
of the 1960s preserved forever. You failed.

He made some weird analogies to
opinions I've expressed, analogies that have NO relationship
whatsoever.

Yes, they do. You just don't like how good the analogies
really are.

wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm

wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004;

Nope. I did not write that I "served in other ways" on that date.

January 13, February 10, May 25 2005.

Nope, nope, and nope again. I did not write that I
"served in other ways" on any of those dates either.

Len, if you had actually *read* what I wrote on those
days, you'd know that.

What I have written is a question for you and others.

Here it is again:

Is service in the military the only way a citizen can
serve our country? Or are there other ways?

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm

wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004;

Nope. I did not write that I "served in other ways" on that date.

"Nope."

January 13, February 10, May 25 2005.

Nope, nope, and nope again. I did not write that I
"served in other ways" on any of those dates either.

"Nope, nope, and nope again."

You're starting to sound like Steve. Everyone else gets everything
wrong.

Len, if you had actually *read* what I wrote on those
days, you'd know that.

What I have written is a question for you and others.

Can you answer your own question?

Here it is again:

Is service in the military the only way a citizen can
serve our country? Or are there other ways?

A rhetorical question? You wanted an answer?

Or were you implying that you "served in other ways?"

Can you answer your own question, or are you going to leave it up to us
Veterans of low-intelligence who got duped by "The Man" to act as
cannon fodder in exchange for a chance at an education?

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 9, 6:28 pm

wrote:
wrote:

Jim, is this what you meant when you said that you "served in other
ways?"

Brian,

You have written that phrase as a direct quote, and attributed it to
me.

Where have I written that I 'served in other ways'?

So you haven't "served in other ways?"

September 24, 2004;

Nope. I did not write that I "served in other ways" on that date.

"Nope."

January 13, February 10, May 25 2005.

Nope, nope, and nope again. I did not write that I
"served in other ways" on any of those dates either.

"Nope, nope, and nope again."

You're starting to sound like Steve. Everyone else gets everything
wrong.

If you're wrong, Brain, you're wrong.

Why do you and the Feeble Five have a hard time with that simple
concept?

Len, if you had actually *read* what I wrote on those
days, you'd know that.

What I have written is a question for you and others.

Can you answer your own question?

Can you answer mine about why you've used diminutives against Jim
when he's never used them on you?

Here it is again:

Is service in the military the only way a citizen can
serve our country? Or are there other ways?

A rhetorical question? You wanted an answer?

Or were you implying that you "served in other ways?"

Can you answer your own question, or are you going to leave it up to us
Veterans of low-intelligence who got duped by "The Man" to act as
cannon fodder in exchange for a chance at an education?

Again with the self-victimizing, Brain.

And a very, VERY poor suggestion that Jim said anything of the
kind.

Steve, K4YZ