 | | Re: Quiet in here
|
|
(...) Like that's going to stop me. I'll just register republican. It's not like you have to sign an oath or anything. I used to switch registrations in NY all the time so I could vote in the D primary. I still have my republican membership card (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Quiet in here
|
|
(...) Hmm.. another reason to have a CLOSED Republican primary. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Quiet in here
|
|
(...) Zing. Ouch. So, how about McCain's upset of Dubya yesterday in the MI primary? Jo and I did our bit (Hey, it's an open primary so natch I voted in the race that made a difference) to stop the Dubya train. That man is all hat and no cattle... (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Quiet in here
|
|
Well, there's one good thing about the new lugnet.admin.council group -- nobody has to come in here to argue... Steve (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
Actually, had you read the previous replies to the message you just replied to, you would see that most of this has already been covered. BTW, the 82nd had considerably more than just "their M16s" when they landed, as anyone who has had to hump a (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
Leaving out the quasi-military Coast Guard and Merchant Marine? For shame! -- William A. Swanberg CPT, SC Commander, 229th Signal Company (TACSAT) swanberg@msn.com "Jeff Stembel" <aulddragon@wamalug.org> wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) Nitpick Time! There are actually six banches of the military. Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Airforce, NOAA Corp, and the Public Health Service. And no, I am not kidding about the last one. :) Jeff "Broken sword and shield and tears that never fall" (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Please remember to post on-topic
|
|
(...) OK, I think it's definitely time to get this thread _away_ from .general (it's gotten waaaay off-topic, and the original post wasn't really on-topic for .general in the first place). The best place to continue this current branch of argument (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
Bill Farkas <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:Fq3pFs.Cqn@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) the (...) Marines, (...) equipped (...) knows (...) force, (...) units and (...) unit (...) top of (...) I must point out that your statement, especially (...) (25 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) My reference to Viet Nam was soley to point out the non-beach landing aspect, not that they were a main force. I agree with your assessment of the debacle over there, but that was due to politicians and not tacticians. Viet Nam had far more to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Double Negativese (was Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
|
Ice wrote in message <38AEC563.B2C84529@i...ve.com>... (...) in (...) Well, I have to admit that I'm way out of practice having been out of New England for almost 10 years now, but what I remember and grew up on were double negatives which were (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) Watch your mouth soldier boy. =) Regards, Kurt (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | My [blank] is bigger than your [blank] (was Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) While this is an interesting debate, may I remind you that this is a family forum? I'd rather you used more powerful rhetoric and less pungent words to get your point across... thanks. (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
(...) Not to start a flame war, but I think those are great examples negatives. Maybe not no simple double negatives, but great negatives none the less. :) Mark (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:Fq6DA5.5Gu@lugnet.com... (...) planet (...) be (...) Forces (...) Let's take these one at a time. 1) This *is* a family forum, so please use appropriate language. 2) Don't confuse (...) (25 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (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)
|
