Logistics Air Force Partnering

In article ,
says...
I'm looking for this kind of collaboration in USA on the web,
I've found a lot of information about other partnering, but nothing
about this one.


Have you considered asking in rec.aviation.military ?

This group deals mainly with US Army maners...

--

You're right,
I'm sorry.


Not meant to drive you away it is just that those with the expertizee will
be found there.

Good luck with the search.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.

Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:58:39 -0700, a stranger
called by some "Tarver Engineering" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army


"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
nk.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.

Not off-topic groups or to more than three total is what's in the
charter, IIRC.

2 groups, and they both relate to the military.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:58:39 -0700, a stranger
called by some "Tarver Engineering" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army


"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
nk.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.

Not off-topic groups or to more than three total is what's in the
charter, IIRC.

2 groups, and they both relate to the military.

It has not been so long ago that us.army.mil was asking to be left out of
crossposts from ram. Do not pull the netcop stunt again, now that your
users are initiating the contact.

In article , says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.


Stop thinking then.

That's my email son.




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article , says...

"Douglas Berry" wrote in message
...
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:58:39 -0700, a stranger
called by some "Tarver Engineering" came forth and
told this tale in us.military.army


"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
nk.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.

Not off-topic groups or to more than three total is what's in the
charter, IIRC.

2 groups, and they both relate to the military.

It has not been so long ago that us.army.mil was asking to be left out of
crossposts from ram. Do not pull the netcop stunt again, now that your
users are initiating the contact.

I pointed the person asking the question to the group most relevant.

us.army.mil is NOT a newsgroup fool.

The newsgroup is us.military.army

And who was asking that us.military.army be left out ?

And where was he netcopping ?
You seemed to be the one tryiing to..



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article , says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.


Stop thinking then.

It is your crosspost that is at issue and you know why.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article , says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.


Stop thinking then.

It is your crosspost that is at issue and you know why.

'cause you're an idjit?

redc1c4,
making the obvious guess. %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article , says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.


Stop thinking then.

It is your crosspost that is at issue and you know why.

'cause you're an idjit?

'cause us.military.army is full of whiners.

In article , says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article , says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

Good luck with the search.

I thought us.army.mil had a no crossposting fettish.


Stop thinking then.

It is your crosspost that is at issue and you know why.

All I know is the respect your opinions get in rec.aviation.military...

You pose a false issue.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.