 | | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
"Bill Farkas" <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:Fq5B2D.I06@lugnet.com... (...) we in (...) staying (...) with the (...) Marines (...) Well, I wasn't going to mention the debacle that was Viet Nam, but since you brought it up... First, I (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) Misconception. The Marines do far more than secure beaches. Why else were we in the forward areas of the desert and Viet Nam (and most conflicts for that matter)? The Marines, pound for pound, pack far more punch. We have staying power and (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
"William A. Swanberg" wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> Go on boys, maybe TLC by following this, will realize it's time to start marketing a military theme. Look at this market potential..:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
I, too, appreciate your pride in your service. But as to "top of the food chain," I have to disagree. I will admit that, to a certain extent, the Marines are an "elite" force, and this is precisely why they are not "at the top of the food chain." No (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) I may have news for you--that "who" wasn't anyone actually doing the fighting. One of the benefits of being at the "top of the food chain", as it were, in an corporatist imperial state means being able to sit in your boardroom sipping (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in article <Fq3tKE.9sx@lugnet.com>... (...) in (...) Well, in my case, Todd gave me the best laugh I've had today. I suspect he knows his double negatives better than that. :) Thanks Todd. Regards, Allan (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in article <rqepaske3v1t1f7b8og...ax.com>... (...) postings (...) since (...) Sounds like a reasonable answer to me. :) I didn't mean to suggest that Larry WASN'T all that his reputation suggests, but (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) If I were to take a guess at it I'd say that Larry was probably one of the first people outside Todd & Suz to really talk with them and help them test things out before LUGNET went live. I was one of the original handful of BETA-testers (I (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) lugnet.off-topic.mil...y-bluster? (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
