[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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?

[dogma4e]

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]

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_]]

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.

[Stewart J. Clerkie-Krooborg IV]

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

Blast! Wrong thread, byee.

--

S J. C-K IV

Music is audio...
Subwoofers are something else.

[dogma4e]

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_]]

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]

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!!!

[Clyde Slick]

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]

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?

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.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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]

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'

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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!]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.