RHF, think about it. He never said that he outranks the sergeant. he simply
said that the sergeant didn't outrank him. It's likely he is some civilian
dependent juvenile delinquent. In any case, rank has nothing to do with it.
If he was subject to the UCMJ and had committed a crime, a private could
take action as well as a general.
"RHF" wrote in message
om...
TLF,

First You Claimed NOT to be Subject to UCMJ.

Now You Claim that You Out-Rank the Sergeant.

Well "TLF" - You are Beginning to Interest Me ;-}

Is "TLF" an Apple ?

Or is "TLF" an Orange ?

"TLF" is beginning to 'sound' like Fruit Salad !

vi ~ RHF
.
.
= = = ggg
= = = wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:09:25 GMT, Burr wrote:

Had a nice talk with a Sgt. Scott over there, send him a lot of the post.

1-478-327-6009

We'll see what happens.

Got to go to San Diego

Burr

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Not a damn thing. Btw, you need to find someone that outranks me..

Tracy

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:34:09 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

RHF, think about it. He never said that he outranks the sergeant. he simply
said that the sergeant didn't outrank him. It's likely he is some civilian
dependent juvenile delinquent. In any case, rank has nothing to do with it.
If he was subject to the UCMJ and had committed a crime, a private could
take action as well as a general.
"RHF" wrote in message
. com...


Yep...thats right...uh huh...

that explains the mil email address too...huh?

Tracy