GOIA's "Expertise" in Miltary Matters 'Rivals' 2pid's!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

GOIA:

Regarding "Armor", you can look up the MOS in this list:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-united-states-army-mos

Note that the "Field Artillery" is entirely seperate from "Armor". A
Field Artillery officer does not become an Armor officer because his
FA battery or battalion is attached to an armored division.

So, GOIA, you can have a 155mm SP battery attached to an Armored
Division. That does not make the M109A6 Paladin 155mm SP "armor". The
weapon, officers, and enlisted personnel are all still "FA". That also
does not makes the M109A6 a "tank". Only an insane dunderhead would
think so. That leaves you (and possibly 2pid).

Get it, GOIA? Or does your insanity interfere with this simple logic?

LOL!

I'll bet you volunteered for latrine duty. Why? Call it a feeling...

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message


> Hear my plea, oh Master.

Bear up, grasshopper. It will all pass.

> Regarding "Armor", you can look up the MOS in this list:

> http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-united-states-army-mos


> Note that the "Field Artillery" is entirely seperate from
> "Armor". A Field Artillery officer does not become an
> Armor officer because his FA battery or battalion is
> attached to an armored division.

So what? We're not talking about officers, we're talking about guns.

Grasshopper, it would be nice if your mind could stay on topic. That's a
characteristic of adults. How old are you, anyway?

> So, GOIA, you can have a 155mm SP battery attached to an
> Armored Division.

Congratulations grasshopper. You have learned from the reference I provided
for you.

> That does not make the M109A6 Paladin
> 155mm SP "armor".

Says who?

> The weapon, officers, and enlisted
> personnel are all still "FA".

I'll remind you grasshopper, that you have drifted a country mile from our
original discussion. The discussion was not about internal administrative
designations and assignments.

>That also does not makes
> the M109A6 a "tank". Only an insane dunderhead would
> think so.

Grasshopper, the whole issue of whether or not a given weapon is a tank is
one that you yourself raised. Enjoy your argument with yourself, because
that is all you are doing.

<ship additional irrelevant blather>

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

A couple of points, GOIS. I thought we agreed that we could assume
that you did your childish editing on posts.

Also, when one is trying not to look foolish, one should acyually not
act foolish while so doing. NormYou should be right if you're going to
argue a point into the ground. Otherwise you appear to be insane.

On Jun 17, 7:26*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > No, GOIA, for the second time, I'm not going to sleep with you.
>
> I'll try to bear up, but it will be hard. I hope it will all pass.
>
> > Regarding "Armor", you can look up the MOS in this list:
> >http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-united-states-army-mos
> > Note that the "Field Artillery" is entirely seperate from
> > "Armor". A Field Artillery officer does not become an
> > Armor officer because his FA battery or battalion is
> > attached to an armored division.
>
> So what? We're not talking about officers, we're talking about guns.

Yes, GOIA, but this shows that just because something or someone is
"attached" to the armor, they or it doesn't become armor.

> Grasshopper, it would be nice if your mind could stay on topic. That's a
> characteristic of adults. How old are you, anyway?

Nice try. The real original topic that you've veered from is how many
field artillery positions you were on during live cannon fire.

LOL! How insane of you to say something like this when you've been
veering away from the original topic since your first post.

> > So, GOIA, you can have a 155mm SP battery attached to an
> > Armored Division.
>
> Congratulations grasshopper. You have learned from the reference I provided
> for you.

Um, no, turdball, your 'enlightened' post tells me nothing.

What *you* should have learned is that merely attaching a gun to armor
does not make it armor any more than attaching a helicopter or ADA
battery to armor makes *them* armor.

But your cloud of insanity has blocked your vision again.

> > That does not make the M109A6 Paladin
> > 155mm SP "armor".
>
> Says who?

Says me, GOIA, the rest of the US Army, and anybody in virtually any
military worldwide.

It really is insane of you to keep arguing this.

LOL!

Whatever, GOIA. Go tell a recruiter you want to join the Armor. See if
you are offered a position in a self-propelled howitzer.

> > The weapon, officers, and enlisted
> > personnel are all still "FA".
>
> I'll remind you grasshopper, that you have drifted a country mile from our
> original discussion. The discussion was not about internal administrative
> designations and assignments.

No, it was about how many FA sites you have been on during live cannon
fire.

But since attaching something to a division or other element is simply
a command-and-control system, the illustration is valid to normal
people. Insane people would probably have a hard time with it.

> >That also does not makes
> > the M109A6 a "tank". Only an insane dunderhead would
> > think so.
>
> Grasshopper, the whole issue of whether or not a given weapon is a tank is
> one that you yourself raised. Enjoy your argument with yourself, because
> that is all you are doing.

"Hey ****R, aren't you the one who thinks that just because you put a
good
artillery piece inside a tank, it stops being artillery."

Message-ID: >

> <ship additional irrelevant blather>

Indeed.

Have a nice day, GOIA. LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Iun, 08:26, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> Bear up, grasshopper.

Say again, cockroach

> Grasshopper, it would be nice if your mind could stay on topic.

Cockroach, it would be nice if you had a sane mind.>

Congratulations grasshopper.

Thank you, cockroach


> I'll remind you grasshopper,

I'll remember your impertinence, cockroach.

> Grasshopper,

Cockroach

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 17, 1:28*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 17 Iun, 08:26, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bear up, grasshopper.
>
> Say again, cockroach
>
> > Grasshopper, it would be nice if your mind could stay on topic.
>
> Cockroach, it would be nice if you had a sane mind.>
>
> *Congratulations grasshopper.
>
> Thank you, cockroach
>
> > I'll remind you grasshopper,
>
> I'll remember your impertinence, cockroach.
>
> > Grasshopper,
>
> Cockroach

GOIA tries to sound like the Enlightened Master in Kung Fu, except
that GOIA is totally wrong. LOL!