Will Sacky face reality? [Archive]

dogma4e

August 5th 08, 01:03 AM

On Aug 4, 6:30*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Regarding the question of who's fit to serve in the armed forces, you said
> you would leave it up to the military "experts". <snicker> At least you
> admit you're not smart enough to hack into this complex question. <chortle>
>
> Let me simplify it for you. The services all administer a battery of tests
> to determine fitness for service. They do physical, mental, background, and
> psychological (intelligence) assessments. The point of all those tests is
> (surprise!) to avoid hiring the unfit.
>
> Then some of the vetted and active personnel turn out to be Gay. Suddenly,
> they're said to be "unfit" for service. What reason is given? Only some
> mealy-mouthed garbage about certain members of the 90% majority being
> "uncomfortable" around gays. Funny, that's what they said when the color
> barrier started to crumble. And they said it again when the sex barrier
> fell.
>
> Can you wrap your sodden brain around any of this, Sacky?

Goddamn, George! I poke my head in here after how many years(?), and
you're still at it, like some deranged energizer bunny. You keep
going, and going, and going, and going... the question is, however,
WHERE???

Have you become stuck to your chair? Don't you have any real world
friends? Why, for God's sake, don't you just buy a shotgun, drive to
Arnie's house in Michigan, finish this business once and for all, and
then go on your way?

I got so sick of this place while I was running Trotsky out of here
that I couldn't wait to be free of this hell hole. Please, tell me
(at least) that you post on other groups or discussion boards, and
that this isn't your only avenue of communication.

Dogma4e

Clyde Slick

August 5th 08, 01:20 AM

On 4 Aug, 19:30, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Regarding the question of who's fit to serve in the armed forces, you said
> you would leave it up to the military "experts". <snicker> At least you
> admit you're not smart enough to hack into this complex question. <chortle>
>
> Let me simplify it for you. The services all administer a battery of tests
> to determine fitness for service. They do physical, mental, background, and
> psychological (intelligence) assessments. The point of all those tests is
> (surprise!) to avoid hiring the unfit.
>
> Then some of the vetted and active personnel turn out to be Gay. Suddenly,
> they're said to be "unfit" for service. What reason is given? Only some
> mealy-mouthed garbage about certain members of the 90% majority being
> "uncomfortable" around gays. Funny, that's what they said when the color
> barrier started to crumble. And they said it again when the sex barrier
> fell.
>
> Can you wrap your sodden brain around any of this, Sacky?

Clyde Slick

August 5th 08, 01:21 AM

Clyde Slick

August 5th 08, 01:23 AM

On 4 Aug, 20:03, dogma4e > wrote:
> On Aug 4, 6:30*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Regarding the question of who's fit to serve in the armed forces, you said
> > you would leave it up to the military "experts". <snicker> At least you
> > admit you're not smart enough to hack into this complex question. <chortle>
>
> > Let me simplify it for you. The services all administer a battery of tests
> > to determine fitness for service. They do physical, mental, background, and
> > psychological (intelligence) assessments. The point of all those tests is
> > (surprise!) to avoid hiring the unfit.
>
> > Then some of the vetted and active personnel turn out to be Gay. Suddenly,
> > they're said to be "unfit" for service. What reason is given? Only some
> > mealy-mouthed garbage about certain members of the 90% majority being
> > "uncomfortable" around gays. Funny, that's what they said when the color
> > barrier started to crumble. And they said it again when the sex barrier
> > fell.
>
> > Can you wrap your sodden brain around any of this, Sacky?
>
> Goddamn, George! *I poke my head in here after how many years(?), and
> you're still at it, like some deranged energizer bunny. *You keep
> going, and going, and going, and going... the question is, however,
> WHERE???
>
> Have you become stuck to your chair? *Don't you have any real world
> friends? Why, for God's sake, don't you just buy a shotgun, drive to
> Arnie's house in Michigan, finish this business once and for all, and
> then go on your way?
>

YOU go out and see how much it costs to rent a bus these days.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 5th 08, 01:31 AM

dogma4e, YACA, barked:

> Why, for God's sake, don't you just buy a shotgun, drive to
> Arnie's house in Michigan, finish this business once and for all, and
> then go on your way?

This thread isn't about the Krooborg. Have you met duh-Scottie? He's doofy
and inarticulate, but I'll bet he can match your rage.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 5th 08, 01:32 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> > Regarding the question of who's fit to serve in the armed forces, you said
> > you would leave it up to the military "experts". <snicker> At least you
> > admit you're not smart enough to hack into this complex question. <chortle>
> >
> > Let me simplify it for you. The services all administer a battery of tests
> > to determine fitness for service. They do physical, mental, background, and
> > psychological (intelligence) assessments. The point of all those tests is
> > (surprise!) to avoid hiring the unfit.
> >
> > Then some of the vetted and active personnel turn out to be Gay. Suddenly,
> > they're said to be "unfit" for service. What reason is given? Only some
> > mealy-mouthed garbage about certain members of the 90% majority being
> > "uncomfortable" around gays. Funny, that's what they said when the color
> > barrier started to crumble. And they said it again when the sex barrier
> > fell.
> >
> > Can you wrap your sodden brain around any of this, Sacky?
>
> well, I am not ready to leave defense
> policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
> and experts can mean any number of people, in
> or out of the service. but NOT the two of you.

In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity.

Clyde Slick

August 5th 08, 01:37 AM

On 4 Aug, 20:32, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Regarding the question of who's fit to serve in the armed forces, you said
> > > you would leave it up to the military "experts". <snicker> At least you
> > > admit you're not smart enough to hack into this complex question. <chortle>
>
> > > Let me simplify it for you. The services all administer a battery of tests
> > > to determine fitness for service. They do physical, mental, background, and
> > > psychological (intelligence) assessments. The point of all those tests is
> > > (surprise!) to avoid hiring the unfit.
>
> > > Then some of the vetted and active personnel turn out to be Gay. Suddenly,
> > > they're said to be "unfit" for service. What reason is given? Only some
> > > mealy-mouthed garbage about certain members of the 90% majority being
> > > "uncomfortable" around gays. Funny, that's what they said when the color
> > > barrier started to crumble. And they said it again when the sex barrier
> > > fell.
>
> > > Can you wrap your sodden brain around any of this, Sacky?
>
> > well, I am not ready to leave defense
> > policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
> > and experts can mean any number of people, in
> > or out of the service. but NOT the two of you.
>
> In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity

my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.
You aren't even 'on topic'

Stewart J. Clerkie-Krooborg IV

August 5th 08, 03:06 AM

wrote...
> This thread isn't about the Krooborg.

Blast! Wrong thread, byee.

--

S J. C-K IV

Music is audio...
Subwoofers are something else.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 5th 08, 03:26 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity

> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.

Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree. You'd have to understand it before
being able to agree or disagree, and you've admitted you can't understand it.

Clyde Slick

August 5th 08, 04:13 AM

On 4 Aug, 22:26, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> > > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity
> > my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.
>
> Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree. You'd have to understand it before
> being able to agree or disagree, and you've admitted you can't understand it.

no, its irrelevant.

Clyde Slick

August 5th 08, 04:14 AM

On 4 Aug, 22:53, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:dhef94p8a97q95oqsk3r1nq4klr8o8ogd3@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> >> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> >> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity
>
> >> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.
>
> > Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree.
>
> and that gets you and Shhhtard in an even bigger tizzy.
> What is up with your deep seated insecurity demanding total agreement?
>
> ScottW

I'm only in 98% agreement, its not good enough.
Look, they can't even get 100% fecal purity out of Krooger.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 5th 08, 04:16 AM

There's that demented-sounding yapping again.

> >> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> >> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity

> >> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.

> > Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree. You'd have to understand it before
> > being able to agree or disagree, and you've admitted you can't understand it.

Scooter, you accidentally snipped most of my very short paragraph. Are you
getting twitchy from all the fleabites?

> and that YAP-YAP-YAP! gets you WOOFWOOFBARKBARK! and YAPPITY-WOOF-WOOF-GROWF! tizzy.
> What is BARK-BARK-WOOF-WOOF! up with WOOF! GRRRRR! GROWL! YAPYAPYAP! agreement?

Witless, didn't the veterinarian tell you that coprophagia isn't right for
every pooch? Just because the Krooborg thrives on an all-poop diet, that
isn't a good reason for you to emulate Turdy's eating habits. I strongly urge
you to fill up on ordinary kibble before venturing into the wild side of the
feeding ritual.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 5th 08, 05:45 AM

On Aug 4, 7:21*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> well, I am not ready to leave defense
> policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.

Based on what rational reason, Clyde? You claim not to be an expert,
but now you are suddenly claiming to be enough of an expert to pick
the experts.

> and experts can mean any number of people, in
> or out of the service. but NOT the two of you.

See above. You've already disqualified yourself from having this
opinion.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 5th 08, 05:46 AM

On Aug 4, 7:37*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 4 Aug, 20:32, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > Regarding the question of who's fit to serve in the armed forces, you said
> > > > you would leave it up to the military "experts". <snicker> At least you
> > > > admit you're not smart enough to hack into this complex question. <chortle>
>
> > > > Let me simplify it for you. The services all administer a battery of tests
> > > > to determine fitness for service. They do physical, mental, background, and
> > > > psychological (intelligence) assessments. The point of all those tests is
> > > > (surprise!) to avoid hiring the unfit.
>
> > > > Then some of the vetted and active personnel turn out to be Gay. Suddenly,
> > > > they're said to be "unfit" for service. What reason is given? Only some
> > > > mealy-mouthed garbage about certain members of the 90% majority being
> > > > "uncomfortable" around gays. Funny, that's what they said when the color
> > > > barrier started to crumble. And they said it again when the sex barrier
> > > > fell.
>
> > > > Can you wrap your sodden brain around any of this, Sacky?
>
> > > well, I am not ready to leave defense
> > > policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
> > > and experts can mean any number of people, in
> > > or out of the service. but NOT the two of you.
>
> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity
>
> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.

But you said you did.

Do you have a mind, or, like 2pid, do you have a 'mind'?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 5th 08, 05:47 AM

On Aug 4, 9:53*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:dhef94p8a97q95oqsk3r1nq4klr8o8ogd3@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> >> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> >> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity
>
> >> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.
>
> > Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree.
>
> and that gets you and Shhhtard in an even bigger tizzy.
> What is up with your deep seated insecurity demanding total agreement?

Disagree, but have some valid reasoning behind it, 2pid.

Your turn: what are some of the potential "harms" that you see from
allowing gays to openly serve? Use your imagination!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 5th 08, 05:49 AM

On Aug 4, 10:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 4 Aug, 22:53, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:dhef94p8a97q95oqsk3r1nq4klr8o8ogd3@4ax .com...
>
> > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > >> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> > >> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity
>
> > >> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.
>
> > > Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree.
>
> > and that gets you and Shhhtard in an even bigger tizzy.
> > What is up with your deep seated insecurity demanding total agreement?
>
> > ScottW
>
> I'm only in 98% agreement, its not good enough.

It's fine, Clyde. I've just asked what "harm" (real or imagined) that
you can come up with since you keep bringing it up.

So far the answer is "zero".

Don't confuse this as a "you must agree with me" statement like your
moronic pal 2pid does. You're smarter than that.

Clyde Slick

August 5th 08, 12:23 PM

On 5 Aug, 00:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 7:21*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > well, I am not ready to leave defense
> > policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
>
> Based on what rational reason, Clyde? You claim not to be an expert,
> but now you are suddenly claiming to be enough of an expert to pick
> the experts.
>

LOL!!!
I have no rational reason to select
you over 300 million other Americans

> > and experts can mean any number of people, in
> > or out of the service. but NOT the two of you.
>
> See above. You've already disqualified yourself from having this
> opinion.

unless i agree with you, that is.

Clyde Slick

August 5th 08, 12:24 PM

On 5 Aug, 00:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Aug, 22:53, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:dhef94p8a97q95oqsk3r1nq4klr8o8ogd3@4ax .com...
>
> > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > >> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> > > >> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity
>
> > > >> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.
>
> > > > Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree.
>
> > > and that gets you and Shhhtard in an even bigger tizzy.
> > > What is up with your deep seated insecurity demanding total agreement?
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > I'm only in 98% agreement, its not good enough.
>
> It's fine, Clyde. I've just asked what "harm" (real or imagined) that
> you can come up with since you keep bringing it up.
>
> So far the answer is "zero".
>

yep!

dogma4e

August 5th 08, 03:55 PM

On Aug 4, 6:31*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> dogma4e, YACA, barked:
>
> > Why, for God's sake, don't you just buy a shotgun, drive to
> > Arnie's house in Michigan, finish this business once and for all, and
> > then go on your way?
>
> This thread isn't about the Krooborg. Have you met duh-Scottie? He's doofy
> and inarticulate, but I'll bet he can match your rage.

Don't bet too much. Heard from trotsky, lately?

I'm to take it that your boredom has brought Scottie back into your
sites for some casual ear boxing while you're waiting for whatever it
is your waiting for to happen?*

Anyway, I guess its something that your still churning out the bile,
George. Like some inorganic rock eminating pure .... hate(?). Don't
look in the mirror too long when you're shaving, is my only advice.
And give everyone a hug for me, ok?

* On an aside, if "IT" ever does happen, please post a thread titled
"It Finally Happened", for my convenience, please.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 5th 08, 04:15 PM

dogma4e, YACA, pukes up a whopping hairball of fractured english.

> > This thread isn't about the Krooborg. Have you met duh-Scottie? He's doofy
> > and inarticulate, but I'll bet he can match your rage.
>
> Don't bet too much. Heard from trotsky, lately?

Not, lately. Why the fixation on trotsky? You just claimed you ran him off
RAO. Why do you keep asking me about him?

dogma4e

August 5th 08, 04:50 PM

On Aug 5, 9:15*am, George M. Middius > wrote:

> dogma4e, YACA, pukes up a whopping hairball of fractured english.
>
> Not, lately. Why the fixation on trotsky? You just claimed you ran him off
> RAO. Why do you keep asking me about him?

Dance, Georgie, dance!!!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 5th 08, 09:25 PM

On Aug 5, 6:23*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 5 Aug, 00:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 7:21*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > well, I am not ready to leave defense
> > > policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
>
> > Based on what rational reason, Clyde? You claim not to be an expert,
> > but now you are suddenly claiming to be enough of an expert to pick
> > the experts.
>
> LOL!!!
> I have no rational reason to select
> you over 300 million other Americans

You have admitted to having absolutely no expertise at all, so there
is no rational reason that you put yourself in the position of
selecting.

> > > and experts can mean any number of people, in
> > > or out of the service. but NOT the two of you.
>
> > See above. You've already disqualified yourself from having this
> > opinion.
>
> unless i agree with you, that is.

Apparently you are as dumb as your friend.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 5th 08, 09:27 PM

On Aug 5, 6:24*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 5 Aug, 00:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 10:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Aug, 22:53, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:dhef94p8a97q95oqsk3r1nq4klr8o8ogd3@4ax .com...
>
> > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > >> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> > > > >> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity
>
> > > > >> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.
>
> > > > > Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree.
>
> > > > and that gets you and Shhhtard in an even bigger tizzy.
> > > > What is up with your deep seated insecurity demanding total agreement?
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > I'm only in 98% agreement, its not good enough.
>
> > It's fine, Clyde. I've just asked what "harm" (real or imagined) that
> > you can come up with since you keep bringing it up.
>
> > So far the answer is "zero".
>
> yep!

Yet you perceive a potential "harm", since you keep bringing it up.

Here, I'll save you the bother:

"Yup!"

Clyde Slick

August 6th 08, 01:18 AM

On 5 Aug, 16:25, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 6:23*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 5 Aug, 00:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 4, 7:21*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > well, I am not ready to leave defense
> > > > policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
>
> > > Based on what rational reason, Clyde? You claim not to be an expert,
> > > but now you are suddenly claiming to be enough of an expert to pick
> > > the experts.
>
> > LOL!!!
> > I have no rational reason to select
> > you over 300 million other Americans
>
> You have admitted to having absolutely no expertise at all, so there
> is no rational reason that you put yourself in the position of
> selecting.
>

I didn't select any experts.
It's neither up to me or you
to select the experts.
Its pretty obvious you won't be one of them.
Nor will I be one of them.

> > > > and experts can mean any number of people, in
> > > > or out of the service. but NOT the two of you.
>
> > > See above. You've already disqualified yourself from having this
> > > opinion.
>
> > unless i agree with you, that is.
>
> Apparently you are as dumb as your friend.

by your silly definition.

Clyde Slick

August 6th 08, 01:18 AM

On 5 Aug, 16:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 6:24*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5 Aug, 00:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 4, 10:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 4 Aug, 22:53, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:dhef94p8a97q95oqsk3r1nq4klr8o8ogd3@4ax .com...
>
> > > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > >> > In other words, you can't. You're too stupid to understand this hugely
> > > > > >> > complex issue. At least we all agree that your problem is stupidity
>
> > > > > >> my "problem" is merely that i don't agree with you.
>
> > > > > > Wrong. You neither agree nor disagree.
>
> > > > > and that gets you and Shhhtard in an even bigger tizzy.
> > > > > What is up with your deep seated insecurity demanding total agreement?
>
> > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > I'm only in 98% agreement, its not good enough.
>
> > > It's fine, Clyde. I've just asked what "harm" (real or imagined) that
> > > you can come up with since you keep bringing it up.
>
> > > So far the answer is "zero".
>
> > yep!
>
> Yet you perceive a potential "harm", since you keep bringing it up.
>
> Here, I'll save you the bother:
>
> "Yup!"-

Nope!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 6th 08, 03:03 AM

On Aug 5, 7:18*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> I didn't select any experts.

"well, I am not ready to leave defense
policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
and experts can mean any number of people, in
or out of the service. but NOT the two of you."

You are apparently "expert" enough to decide who is an expert.

> It's neither up to me or you
> to select the experts.
> Its pretty obvious you won't be one of them.

Why would you say that?

> Nor will I be one of them.

Agreed. Experts have to have the backbone to form opinions and then be
able to back them up.> > > unless i agree with you, that is.

> > Apparently you are as dumb as your friend.
>
> by your silly definition.

Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to demanding
that you agree with mine.

That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 6th 08, 03:19 AM

Shhhh! said:

> > > Apparently you are as dumb as your friend.

> > by your silly definition.
>
> Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to demanding
> that you agree with mine.
> That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.

Is that really what his yapping means? Hmmm.... It does explain why Scottie
shoots from the hip so often.

Clyde Slick

August 6th 08, 03:40 AM

Clyde Slick

August 6th 08, 03:45 AM

On 5 Aug, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 7:18*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > I didn't select any experts.
>
> "well, I am not ready to leave defense
> policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
> and experts can mean any number of people, in
> or out of the service. but NOT the two of you."
>
> You are apparently "expert" enough to decide who is an expert.
>

I can read a resume.

> > It's neither up to me or you
> > to select the experts.
> > Its pretty obvious you won't be one of them.
>
> Why would you say that?
>

LOL!!!
I just don't see you among the top ten or twenty experts
in this field. AS a matter of fact, none of us here know
your real identity. there is no reason
for me to accept an anonymous poster as an expert in anything.

> > Nor will I be one of them.
>
> Agreed. Experts have to have the backbone to form opinions and then be
> able to back them up.> > > unless i agree with you, that is.
>
> > > Apparently you are as dumb as your friend.
>
> > by your silly definition.
>
> Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to demanding
> that you agree with mine.
>
> That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.

remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no position.
So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have no
position.
Good luck!!!!

Jenn[_3_]

August 6th 08, 04:15 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
> On 5 Aug, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> >
> > Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to demanding
> > that you agree with mine.
> >
> > That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.
>
>
> :remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
> :military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no position.
> :So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have no
> :position.
> :Good luck!!!!
>
> Here's a reason. HIV positive people are currently denied entry to the
> military.
> Probably because people who become HIV+ in the military are deemed unsuitable
> for deployment according to shhtard. A position he supports due
> to the possibility of the need for emergency blood transfusions.
>
> Gay Men have a proven far higher incidence of contracting AIDS
> than any other group.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
> MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents
> in
> 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based
> HIV
> reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in
> the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].
>
> Then there is the lack of an effective AIDS test
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5D9113FF932A35755C0A96F948
> 260
> which places combat soldiers at risk in the event of emergency transfusions.

That was 19 years ago. Is the test better now?

>
> Is there any reason to unnecessarily increase soldiers risk?
>
> There is also the risk to our blood and organ supply by the lack of an
> effective
> test.

On a related issue, I heard today that the military is offering bonuses
to Arabic translators who (as I recall) re-enlist or enlist for the
first time of up to $150,000. Such is the need. We've also fired some
300 such translators under DADT.

So it's official: The military is more afraid of gay people than they
are of terrorists.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 6th 08, 06:21 AM

Poor Scottie snaps and snarls at reality, but as ever before, reality eludes
his chompers.

> > On a related issue, I heard today that the military is offering bonuses
> > to Arabic translators who (as I recall) re-enlist or enlist for the
> > first time of up to $150,000. Such is the need. We've also fired some
> > 300 such translators under DADT.
> >
> > So it's official: The military is more afraid of gay people than they
> > are of terrorists.
>
> Now that is one seriously twisted conclusion.

Another entry for the Scottie-to-English codex:

twisted (adj): self-evident; indisputable; patent

The Scottie 'Language' Project will continue until at least March 2010. After
that, additional funding may be requested from RAO regulars.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 6th 08, 08:02 AM

On Aug 5, 9:45*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 5 Aug, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 7:18*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > I didn't select any experts.
>
> > "well, I am not ready to leave defense
> > policy in the hands of you and Shhh!.
> > and experts can mean any number of people, in
> > or out of the service. but NOT the two of you."
>
> > You are apparently "expert" enough to decide who is an expert.
>
> I can read a resume.

But you have no expertise in determining what any of it means.

There is no "Doctor of Integrating Gays into the Military" degree
conferred anywhere that I am aware of.

> > > It's neither up to me or you
> > > to select the experts.
> > > Its pretty obvious you won't be one of them.
>
> > Why would you say that?
>
> LOL!!!
> I just don't see you among the top ten or twenty experts
> in this field.

Which field? The field of "Integrating Gays into the Military"?

> AS a matter of fact, none of us here know
> your real identity. there is no reason
> for me to accept an anonymous poster as an expert in anything.

Ah, of course. This old saw.

I'll leave that to you and 2pid. That seems to be about all you have.
My personal belief is that my postings have shown my expertise in
military matters to those who can think.

I don't particularly care about you, 2pid or GOIA on that front.

> > > Nor will I be one of them.
>
> > Agreed. Experts have to have the backbone to form opinions and then be
> > able to back them up.> > > unless i agree with you, that is.
>
> > > > Apparently you are as dumb as your friend.
>
> > > by your silly definition.
>
> > Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to demanding
> > that you agree with mine.
>
> > That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.
>
> remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
> military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no position.

Your position, actually, is that you have no problem with it "as long
as no harm comes to the military's ability to perform its mission".

Asking why you have that qualifier and what that qualifier means is
fair game. Yopu have nothing, yet you hold on to this position.

> So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have no
> position.

Not true. You perceive a potential harm that you cannot verbalize.

> Good luck!!!!

In getting you to see that your stated position is not what you say it
is?

Don't worry. I'm not holding my breath.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 6th 08, 08:08 AM

On Aug 5, 10:05*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 5 Aug, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to demanding
> > that you agree with mine.
>
> > That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.
>
> :remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
> :military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no position.
> :So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have no
> :position.
> :Good luck!!!!
>
> Here's a reason. HIV positive people are currently denied entry to the military.

So? So are drug users, and many handicapped people. You also have to
pass vision tests and intelligence tests for most jobs, and it used to
be that if you had a criminal record you were out. I think you can
waiver the criminal background now.

I had two recruits rejected from my unit. One was for "droopy eyelids"
and the other was for "sweaty palms". That was in 1999 IIRC.

> Probably because people who become HIV+ in the military are deemed unsuitable
> for deployment according to shhtard. *A position he supports due
> to the possibility of the need for emergency blood transfusions.

There are many, many stateside jobs they can do if HIV positive, 2pid.

> Gay Men have a proven far higher incidence of contracting AIDS
> than any other group.

Military personnel are a high-risk group themselves, 2pid. You don't
seem to want to talk about that in your homophobic rants.

I'd also suggest you look at the sex workers that soldiers tend to
patronize when on leave. What is the HIV infection rate for
prostitutes?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 6th 08, 08:19 AM

On Aug 6, 12:21*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Poor Scottie snaps and snarls at reality, but as ever before, reality eludes
> his chompers.
>
> > > On a related issue, I heard today that the military is offering bonuses
> > > to Arabic translators who (as I recall) re-enlist or enlist for the
> > > first time of up to $150,000. *Such is the need. *We've also fired some
> > > 300 such translators under DADT.
>
> > > So it's official: *The military is more afraid of gay people than they
> > > are of terrorists.
>
> > Now that is one seriously twisted conclusion.
>
> Another entry for the Scottie-to-English codex:
>
> * * * * twisted (adj): self-evident; indisputable; patent
>
> The Scottie 'Language' Project will continue until at least March 2010. After
> that, additional funding may be requested from RAO regulars.

LOL!

2pid has been melting down far more than normal for him recently. One
has to wonder why.

My theory is that he had to euthanize his favorite lover at the vet.
Then he found out that the local clinic will not test stray mongrels
for HIV.

Poor 2pid needs to get laid.

Clyde Slick

August 6th 08, 12:03 PM

On 6 Aug, 03:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 9:45*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>

>
> > > You are apparently "expert" enough to decide who is an expert.
>
> > I can read a resume.
>
> But you have no expertise in determining what any of it means.
>
> There is no "Doctor of Integrating Gays into the Military" degree
> conferred anywhere that I am aware of.
>
>

Really????
I thought you might have one.
You could post it on the internet.

> > LOL!!!
> > I just don't see you among the top ten or twenty experts
> > in this field.
>
> Which field? The field of "Integrating Gays into the Military"?
>

military preparedenss, organization, personnel

> > AS a matter of fact, none of us here know
> > your real identity. there is no reason
> > for me to accept an anonymous poster as an expert in anything.
>
> Ah, of course. This old saw.
>

Silly me!!!!
undoubtebly, you are an expert on any matter we talk about!!!

I'll leave that to you and 2pid. That seems to be about all you have.
> My personal belief is that my postings have shown my expertise in
> military matters to those who can think.
>

and you retired at WHAt rank?
and you are more expert than any of the thousands attaining
that rank, or higher?

>
> > remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
> > military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no position.
>
> Your position, actually, is that you have no problem with it "as long
> as no harm comes to the military's ability to perform its mission".
>
> Asking why you have that qualifier and what that qualifier means is
> fair game. Yopu have nothing, yet you hold on to this position.
>

> > So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have no
> > position.
>
> Not true. You perceive a potential harm that you cannot verbalize.
>

READ MY LIPS!!!!
I don't perceive any particular harm.

Jenn[_3_]

August 6th 08, 04:27 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> On 5 Aug, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to demanding
> >> > that you agree with mine.
> >> >
> >> > That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.
> >>
> >>
> >> :remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
> >> :military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no position.
> >> :So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have no
> >> :position.
> >> :Good luck!!!!
> >>
> >> Here's a reason. HIV positive people are currently denied entry to the
> >> military.
> >> Probably because people who become HIV+ in the military are deemed
> >> unsuitable
> >> for deployment according to shhtard. A position he supports due
> >> to the possibility of the need for emergency blood transfusions.
> >>
> >> Gay Men have a proven far higher incidence of contracting AIDS
> >> than any other group.
> >>
> >> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
> >> MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and
> >> adolescents
> >> in
> >> 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based
> >> HIV
> >> reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents
> >> in
> >> the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].
> >>
> >> Then there is the lack of an effective AIDS test
> >> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5D9113FF932A35755C0A96F
> >> 948
> >> 260
> >> which places combat soldiers at risk in the event of emergency
> >> transfusions.
> >
> > That was 19 years ago. Is the test better now?
>
> Good point. There are better tests.
>
> http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1765,22071.asp
>
> but for typical tests a window period still remains.
>
> http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1765,22075.asp
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Is there any reason to unnecessarily increase soldiers risk?
> >>
> >> There is also the risk to our blood and organ supply by the lack of an
> >> effective
> >> test.
> >
> > On a related issue, I heard today that the military is offering bonuses
> > to Arabic translators who (as I recall) re-enlist or enlist for the
> > first time of up to $150,000. Such is the need. We've also fired some
> > 300 such translators under DADT.
> >
> > So it's official: The military is more afraid of gay people than they
> > are of terrorists.
>
> Now that is one seriously twisted conclusion.
>
> ScottW

I guess that having translators isn't so important.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 6th 08, 05:16 PM

Shhhh! said:

> My theory is that he had to euthanize his favorite lover at the vet.

Well, sure, that would have been a major downer. Can you imagine how difficult
it is to train a mutt to give head?

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 6th 08, 05:17 PM

Jenn said:

> > > On a related issue, I heard today that the military is offering bonuses
> > > to Arabic translators who (as I recall) re-enlist or enlist for the
> > > first time of up to $150,000. Such is the need. We've also fired some
> > > 300 such translators under DADT.
> > >
> > > So it's official: The military is more afraid of gay people than they
> > > are of terrorists.

> > Now that is one seriously twisted conclusion.

> I guess that having translators isn't so important.

It all depends, Jenn. Do you want a highly functional military or do you want
'moral purity'? We know what Scottie believes in.

Jenn[_3_]

August 6th 08, 05:24 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 6, 8:27*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> On 5 Aug, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > >> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> > Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to demanding
> > > >> > that you agree with mine.
> >
> > > >> > That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.
> >
> > > >> :remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
> > > >> :military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no position.
> > > >> :So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have no
> > > >> :position.
> > > >> :Good luck!!!!
> >
> > > >> Here's a reason. HIV positive people are currently denied entry to the
> > > >> military.
> > > >> Probably because people who become HIV+ in the military are deemed
> > > >> unsuitable
> > > >> for deployment according to shhtard. *A position he supports due
> > > >> to the possibility of the need for emergency blood transfusions.
> >
> > > >> Gay Men have a proven far higher incidence of contracting AIDS
> > > >> than any other group.
> >
> > > >>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
> > > >> MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and
> > > >> adolescents
> > > >> in
> > > >> 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential
> > > >> name-based
> > > >> HIV
> > > >> reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and
> > > >> adolescents
> > > >> in
> > > >> the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].
> >
> > > >> Then there is the lack of an effective AIDS test
> > > >>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5D9113FF932A35755...
> > > >> 948
> > > >> 260
> > > >> which places combat soldiers at risk in the event of emergency
> > > >> transfusions.
> >
> > > > That was 19 years ago. *Is the test better now?
> >
> > > Good point. *There are better tests.
> >
> > >http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1765,22...
> >
> > > but for typical tests a window period still remains.
> >
> > >http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1765,22...
> >
> > > >> Is there any reason to unnecessarily increase soldiers risk?
> >
> > > >> There is also the risk to our blood and organ supply by the lack of an
> > > >> effective
> > > >> test.
> >
> > > > On a related issue, I heard today that the military is offering bonuses
> > > > to Arabic translators who (as I recall) re-enlist or enlist for the
> > > > first time of up to $150,000. *Such is the need. *We've also fired some
> > > > 300 such translators under DADT.
> >
> > > > So it's official: *The military is more afraid of gay people than they
> > > > are of terrorists.
> >
> > > Now that is one seriously twisted conclusion.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > I guess that having translators isn't so important.
>
> What kind of bigotry is evidenced by your conclusion that
> the translators are terrorists?
>
> ScottW

huh?

Jenn[_3_]

August 6th 08, 06:09 PM

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Aug 6, 9:24*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Aug 6, 8:27*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > >>m...
> > > > > >> On 5 Aug, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> > Asking you to back up your position is not equivalent to
> > > > > >> > demanding
> > > > > >> > that you agree with mine.
> >
> > > > > >> > That's the same mistake that 2pid always makes.
> >
> > > > > >> :remember, the question is in what specific way would gays in the
> > > > > >> :military hurt performance. My psoition is that I have no
> > > > > >> :position.
> > > > > >> :So, really, you are asking me to back up my position that I have
> > > > > >> :no
> > > > > >> :position.
> > > > > >> :Good luck!!!!
> >
> > > > > >> Here's a reason. HIV positive people are currently denied entry to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> military.
> > > > > >> Probably because people who become HIV+ in the military are deemed
> > > > > >> unsuitable
> > > > > >> for deployment according to shhtard. *A position he supports due
> > > > > >> to the possibility of the need for emergency blood transfusions.
> >
> > > > > >> Gay Men have a proven far higher incidence of contracting AIDS
> > > > > >> than any other group.
> >
> > > > > >>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm
> > > > > >> MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and
> > > > > >> adolescents
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential
> > > > > >> name-based
> > > > > >> HIV
> > > > > >> reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and
> > > > > >> adolescents
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> the United States identify themselves as MSM [1, 2].
> >
> > > > > >> Then there is the lack of an effective AIDS test
> > > > > >>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5D9113FF932A3575
> > > > > >>5...
> > > > > >> 948
> > > > > >> 260
> > > > > >> which places combat soldiers at risk in the event of emergency
> > > > > >> transfusions.
> >
> > > > > > That was 19 years ago. *Is the test better now?
> >
> > > > > Good point. *There are better tests.
> >
> > > > >http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1765,22..
> > > > >.
> >
> > > > > but for typical tests a window period still remains.
> >
> > > > >http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1765,22..
> > > > >.
> >
> > > > > >> Is there any reason to unnecessarily increase soldiers risk?
> >
> > > > > >> There is also the risk to our blood and organ supply by the lack
> > > > > >> of an
> > > > > >> effective
> > > > > >> test.
> >
> > > > > > On a related issue, I heard today that the military is offering
> > > > > > bonuses
> > > > > > to Arabic translators who (as I recall) re-enlist or enlist for the
> > > > > > first time of up to $150,000. *Such is the need. *We've also fired
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > 300 such translators under DADT.
> >
> > > > > > So it's official: *The military is more afraid of gay people than
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > are of terrorists.
> >
> > > > > Now that is one seriously twisted conclusion.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > I guess that having translators isn't so important.
> >
> > > What kind of bigotry is evidenced by your conclusion that
> > > the translators are terrorists?
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > huh?
>
> You've concluded that letting in translators while not letting
> in gay people means the military is more afraid of gays than
> terrorists, therefore you must be equating translators to terrorists.

That's one of the most strangest twists of logic I've yet read. What is
obviously concluded is that the military would rather pay huge bonuses
for new and retained translators which they may or may not get than keep
already trained translators who are gay. The need for translators is
obviously pressing, but not pressing enough to keep their gay comrades.

>
> Now in reality I know you don't intend to equate translators with
> terrorists, but it is a more straight forward interpretation of your
> premise than your assumption that all translators are working to
> prevent terrorism which is clearly not true.
> More are working on reconstruction and Iraqi gov't support
> than direct counter terrorism AFAICT, though definitive numbers
> are not readily available.

All part of the War on Terror, right?

>
> BTW, the actual number of arabic translators discharged under
> DADT is 55. 300 were discharged with "language skills".
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

Yes, "important language skills". Are you happy with the $369,000,000
this is costing?
>
>
> ScottW

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 6th 08, 06:53 PM

The Idiot yapped:

> You've concluded that letting in translators while not letting
> in gay people means the military is more afraid of gays than
> terrorists, therefore you must be equating translators to terrorists.

Uh-oh. I think Witless hit his head on a hard surface.

Scottie, go have a lie-down. You're foaming at the keyboard.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 6th 08, 09:55 PM

On Aug 6, 6:03*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 6 Aug, 03:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 9:45*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > You are apparently "expert" enough to decide who is an expert.
>
> > > I can read a resume.
>
> > But you have no expertise in determining what any of it means.
>
> > There is no "Doctor of Integrating Gays into the Military" degree
> > conferred anywhere that I am aware of.
>
> Really????

Really.

> I thought you might have one.
> You could post it on the internet.

Here's a course that I took while in the military, Clyde:

http://www.deomi.org/

Perhaps this will help explain why I am more sensitive to
discrimination issues than others, including your pal 2pid.

> > > LOL!!!
> > > I just don't see you among the top ten or twenty experts
> > > in this field.
>
> > Which field? The field of "Integrating Gays into the Military"?
>
> military preparedenss, organization, personnel

At the unit level there won't be too many others with my experience
and training. At levels above division there will be.

> > > AS a matter of fact, none of us here know
> > > your real identity. there is no reason
> > > for me to accept an anonymous poster as an expert in anything.
>
> > Ah, of course. This old saw.
>
> Silly me!!!!
> undoubtebly, you are an expert on any matter we talk about!!!

No. But I know what I know.

> *I'll leave that to you and 2pid. That seems to be about all you have.
>
> > My personal belief is that my postings have shown my expertise in
> > military matters to those who can think.
>
> and you retired at WHAt rank?

Major.

> and you are more expert than any of the thousands attaining
> that rank, or higher?

I am more of an expert on field artillery than any general who was not
branched field artillery. Rank is somewhat irrelevant as a mark of
"expertise" in some areas of the military. As a first lieutenant I
advised a full colonel (infantry) on fire support matters.

I would say that if there are any "harms" that could possibly come as
a result of allowing gays to openly serve in the military and
integrating them they would occur at the small unit level. I have
commanded three units, one of which had a large percentage of
minorities and female soldiers. I have been on staff at battalion,
brigade and division level.

If a four-star general commanded a small unit that did not have
females and minorities, I would say that my expertise exceeds his in
this matter.

> READ MY LIPS!!!!
> I don't perceive any particular harm.

Good. Other than prejudice, there aren't any.