Why McKelvy is such an idiot ?

[Lionel]

The questions are simple McKelvy :

*WHY ARE YOU SO FULL OF **** ?*

Some other "crappy" statistics for you, idiot :

http://www.medalofhonor.com/Casualties.htm
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Americas_wars_060203.htm

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

> http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Americas_wars_060203.htm

This site has some very bad math. The other deaths in service non theater
equals 461,491, not 229,691.
Adding them all up (correctly) quals, 1,126,298
Very clos to the number I reported yesterday,
and far, far less than YOUR numbers

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Americas_wars_060203.htm
>
>
> This site has some very bad math. The other deaths in service non theater
> equals 461,491, not 229,691.

this is not the site I have quoted the first time.

> Adding them all up (correctly) quals, 1,126,298
> Very clos to the number I reported yesterday,
> and far, far less than YOUR numbers

Why are you so full of **** Sackman ?

These numbers come from official US sites and Department of Defense and
Veterans Administration.
It is not my *numbers*... The number I have quoted is also correct. the
interpretation of the number is coming from your sick imagination. Don't
forget that the title of the threadwas "A statistic a la Sackman..."

If you have problem with numbers check that with sites owners and
veterans associations not with me.

I have demonstrated that you are an idiot, Sackborg. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Americas_wars_060203.htm
>>
>>
>> This site has some very bad math. The other deaths in service non theater
>> equals 461,491, not 229,691.
>
> this is not the site I have quoted the first time.
>
>> Adding them all up (correctly) quals, 1,126,298
>> Very clos to the number I reported yesterday,
>> and far, far less than YOUR numbers
>
> Why are you so full of **** Sackman ?
>
> These numbers come from official US sites and Department of Defense and
> Veterans Administration.
> It is not my *numbers*... The number I have quoted is also correct. the
> interpretation of the number is coming from your sick imagination. Don't
> forget that the title of the threadwas "A statistic a la Sackman..."
>
> If you have problem with numbers check that with sites owners and veterans
> associations not with me.
>

No, the leftisit site YOU proposed mangled the correct
statistics form the DOD

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Americas_wars_060203.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>This site has some very bad math. The other deaths in service non theater
>>>equals 461,491, not 229,691.
>>
>>this is not the site I have quoted the first time.
>>
>>
>>>Adding them all up (correctly) quals, 1,126,298
>>>Very clos to the number I reported yesterday,
>>>and far, far less than YOUR numbers
>>
>>Why are you so full of **** Sackman ?
>>
>>These numbers come from official US sites and Department of Defense and
>>Veterans Administration.
>>It is not my *numbers*... The number I have quoted is also correct. the
>>interpretation of the number is coming from your sick imagination. Don't
>>forget that the title of the threadwas "A statistic a la Sackman..."
>>
>>If you have problem with numbers check that with sites owners and veterans
>>associations not with me.
>>
>
>
> No, the leftisit site YOU proposed mangled the correct
> statistics form the DOD

And what about this one Sackborg :
http://www.medalofhonor.com/Casualties.htm
Also "leftist" ?

Still confusing Noriega and Allende, eh idiot ?

>
>

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Americas_wars_060203.htm
>
>
> This site has some very bad math.

Oh, normal it's a veteran site. Iguess they are all damaged, like
McKelvy. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Americas_wars_060203.htm
>>
>>
>> This site has some very bad math.
>
> Oh, normal it's a veteran site. Iguess they are all damaged, like McKelvy.
> :-)

But a leftisit one

Anyway, the second site you reference also had bad math.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Americas_wars_060203.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>This site has some very bad math.
>>
>>Oh, normal it's a veteran site. Iguess they are all damaged, like McKelvy.
>>:-)
>
>
> But a leftisit one
>
> Anyway, the second site you reference also had bad math.

Why are you speaking of bad math ?
I never quoted a number nor a statistic which request any math.

Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?

This problem of math and calculation is your fantasy only, it is not my
fault if you are too stupid to find the true of it. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
> Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>

I have learned to read in an American school,
though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
whatever that means. No wonder it is so
difficult to take your writings as literral.
Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
>>Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>>
>
>
> I have learned to read in an American school,
> though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
> whatever that means. No wonder it is so
> difficult to take your writings as literral.
> Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.

You don't take them as literral but you make 3 days of math around them.
You are a joke, SackBorg, a fraud. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
>>>Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have learned to read in an American school,
>> though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
>> whatever that means. No wonder it is so
>> difficult to take your writings as literral.
>> Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.
>
> You don't take them as literral but you make 3 days of math around them.
> You are a joke, SackBorg, a fraud. :-)

Yes, we can't take you as literal.
Decipherung is usually necessary.
BTW, your original premise was wrong.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
>>>>Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have learned to read in an American school,
>>>though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
>>>whatever that means. No wonder it is so
>>>difficult to take your writings as literral.
>>>Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.
>>
>>You don't take them as literral but you make 3 days of math around them.
>>You are a joke, SackBorg, a fraud. :-)
>
>
> Yes, we can't take you as literal.
> Decipherung is usually necessary.
> BTW, your original premise was wrong.

Obviously it was wrong, this is why the title of the threrad was "A
statistic a la Sackamn..." :-)
But you need 3 days of painful math to understand this. This is just
what I wanted to demonstrate...
Now only McKelvy believes that you can have pertinent historic analysis
and point of view. :-)

[jak163]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:09:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:

>
>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>> Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
>> Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>>
>
>I have learned to read in an American school,
>though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
>whatever that means. No wonder it is so
>difficult to take your writings as literral.
>Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.

How's your French?

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
>>>>Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have learned to read in an American school,
>>>though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
>>>whatever that means. No wonder it is so
>>>difficult to take your writings as literral.
>>>Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.
>>
>>You don't take them as literral but you make 3 days of math around them.
>>You are a joke, SackBorg, a fraud. :-)
>
>
> Yes, we can't take you as literal.

Do you mean "literal" or "literral" ? :-)

> Decipherung is usually necessary.

Do you means "deciphering" ? :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
>>>>>Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have learned to read in an American school,
>>>>though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
>>>>whatever that means. No wonder it is so
>>>>difficult to take your writings as literral.
>>>>Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.
>>>
>>>You don't take them as literral but you make 3 days of math around them.
>>>You are a joke, SackBorg, a fraud. :-)
>>
>>
>> Yes, we can't take you as literal.
>> Decipherung is usually necessary.
>> BTW, your original premise was wrong.
>
> Obviously it was wrong, this is why the title of the threrad was "A
> statistic a la Sackamn..." :-)
> But you need 3 days of painful math to understand this. This is just what
> I wanted to demonstrate...
> Now only McKelvy believes that you can have pertinent historic analysis
> and point of view. :-)

I needed three days to decipher your Chapuinglish,
and determine it was not figurative.
Now you have three days to go over your initial
claim to understand your bad math. The US casualties
were higher than the French,
US, some 600,000 to 1.1 million depending
on criteria or interpretation, vs. French 375,000 to 475,000
depending on interpretation of statistics.

[Clyde Slick]

"jak163" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:09:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>> Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
>>> Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>>>
>>
>>I have learned to read in an American school,
>>though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
>>whatever that means. No wonder it is so
>>difficult to take your writings as literral.
>>Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.
>
> How's your French?

Are youh aving fun atop your Tower of Babel?

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where have you learnt to read SackBorbg ?
>>>>>>Where have you learnt to comment a statement ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have learned to read in an American school,
>>>>>though I never "learnt to comment a statement",
>>>>>whatever that means. No wonder it is so
>>>>>difficult to take your writings as literral.
>>>>>Your English composition and usage is quite tortured.
>>>>
>>>>You don't take them as literral but you make 3 days of math around them.
>>>>You are a joke, SackBorg, a fraud. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, we can't take you as literal.
>>> Decipherung is usually necessary.
>>> BTW, your original premise was wrong.
>>
>> Obviously it was wrong, this is why the title of the threrad was "A
>> statistic a la Sackamn..." :-)
>> But you need 3 days of painful math to understand this. This is just what
>> I wanted to demonstrate...
>> Now only McKelvy believes that you can have pertinent historic analysis
>> and point of view. :-)
>
> I needed three days to decipher your Chapuinglish,
> and determine it was not figurative.
> Now you have three days to go over your initial
> claim to understand your bad math. The US casualties
> were higher than the French,
> US, some 600,000 to 1.1 million depending
> on criteria or interpretation, vs. French 375,000 to 475,000
> depending on interpretation of statistics.

;-)