A Wake Up Call From Luke AFB

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 7/10/2007 2:21:41 PM, Clark wrote:

His post is ambiguous at best. My interpretation is reasonable even
though
it may or may not have been the author's intent. I'll maintain my stance
on the author's nature.

Very well. We all need a cause and it appears that you have advanced
yours.


As with yourself.

On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:

Do you have a point?

Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and seemingly
damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of disrespecting Navy
or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to explain himself you still
stand by the opinion that he did.

As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have been
misinterpreted by the reader...



--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:

Do you have a point?

Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and
seemingly
damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of disrespecting
Navy
or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to explain himself you still
stand by the opinion that he did.

As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have been
misinterpreted by the reader...


So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good.

Matt Barrow writes:

So snarl at the reader, not the poster: real good.

Better still, keep to the topic, and skip the personal attacks.

Recently, Clark posted:

"Peter R." wrote in
:

On 7/10/2007 4:12:17 PM, Clark wrote:

Do you have a point?

Yes. My point is that you are making something out of nothing and
seemingly damn proud of it. The original author had no intention of
disrespecting Navy or Vietnam vets, yet even after he attempted to
explain himself you still stand by the opinion that he did.

You are leaping to an unsupported conclusion.

There is no leaping involved, given that I've explained my original
question in plain language, more than once.

As if you have never, ever posted a thought on Usenet that could have
been misinterpreted by the reader...

Or maybe it was interpreted correctly by the reader? That's the
nature of the beast since the author's statement can legitimately be
taken either way.

When it was clear to me that you misinterpreted my intended question, I
clarified it. Others clarified it, as well. So, even if the original
question was as ambiguous as you thought it was, there is no legitimate
reason to continue to think that I was in any way disrespecting Navy or
Vietnam vets. Indeed, I lost too many good friends in that fight to sully
their memory in that way.

As for you changing your mind, for whatever reason; I really don't care
whether you do or not. Think whatever you want. But, I will continue to
make it obvious to other readers of this thread where I stand, and then
they can make up their own minds about your nature.

Neil




If you want to defend the author, fine, have at it.
Expect others to acquiesce to your badgering? Forget it.

On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:

Expect others to
acquiesce to your badgering?

My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:

Expect others to
acquiesce to your badgering?

My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.

Funny thing is, you never badgered the OP.

Doesn't that seem funny, given that several people took it the same way.

Reminds one of the people that endless excuses for their kids.

On 7/11/2007 6:08:12 PM, Clark wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in
:

On 7/11/2007 12:08:29 AM, Clark wrote:

Expect others to
acquiesce to your badgering?

My badgering? You asked if I had a point, so I explained it.


Yes, badgering.

Yawn.

--
Peter