Sign in to follow this  
Happy Jack

Still don't believe it.

Recommended Posts

 

Flynn contacting Russian officials without the express consent of the US State Department is illegal. Treason.

Do you know that for a fact, or speculating?

 

Look up the Logan act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Flynn contacting Russian officials without the express consent of the US State Department is illegal. Treason.

 

Do you know that for a fact, or speculating?

Get a Russian VISA and got directly to jail?

Maybe he was just checking with the Russian Federation on travel requirements for when he made his first state visit with Trump. I found this page for him but couldn't read it all. http://ps.fsb.ru/dpk/oficial_materialy/puteshestviya.htm I think this page from the Russian airline would have answered most questions but Trump doesn't have any experience with airline travel like a commoner. I think similar needs can be met by the Kremlin with advanced notice.

 

 

"Dear passengers, reserving tickets you shall warn the airline company that you are going to fulfill a flight with a child.

Airline companies deliver for the period of the flight baby bassinets for the youngest passengers. Baby bassinets are delivered for children till a definite age. You shall warn the airline company about the necessity of this service in advance, when making reservation, but not later than 24 hours before your flights.

Passengers, travelling with children younger than 2.5 years old, can take a travelling bassinet in hand luggage.

Passengers with children can order infant food to the board of an airplane. To do this one shall notify the airline company about the necessity of having infant food not less than 36 hours prior the flight. Please, inquire a possibility of ordering special food at your flight in your airline company.

Children, travelling independently, shall be accompanied by a member of the airplane crew during the flight period. Please, inquire the terms of rendering the service of accompanying of your child in your airline company."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Flynn contacting Russian officials without the express consent of the US State Department is illegal. Treason.

Do you know that for a fact, or speculating?

 

Look up the Logan act.

 

 

When they prosecute Jane Fonda, Jesse Jackson and Jimmy Carter get back to us ...

In a number of instances, people have been alleged, often by political opponents, to have violated

the Logan Act. For example, critics have suggested that Ross Perot’s efforts to find missing

American servicemen in Southeast Asia have violated the Logan Act. Critics alleged that former

House Speaker Jim Wright violated the Logan Act in his relations with the Sandinista

government. In 1984 while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President, Reverend

Jesse Jackson went to Syria to help in the release of a captured American military flyer and to

Cuba and Nicaragua. The trips by Reverend Jackson occasioned comments from a number of

people, most notably from President Reagan, that Reverend Jackson had violated the Logan Act.

Other private citizens, such as Jane Fonda, have made trips which have been criticized as

violative of the Logan Act. One of the most recent allegations involving a possible Logan Act

violation focuses on a letter signed by 47 U.S. Senators to Iran suggesting that an agreement

between the President and the Iranian leadership would be an executive agreement that another

President or Congress would be able to abrogate.44 There have apparently been no official

sanctions taken in any of these instances.

 

Although it appears that there has never been a prosecution under the Logan Act, there have been

several judicial references to it, indicating that the act has not been forgotten and that it is at least

a potential point of challenge that has been used against anyone who without a

uthority allegedly interferes in the foreign relations of the United States. There have been efforts to repeal the act,

one of the most significant occurring in the late 1970s. For example, Senator Edward Kennedy

proposed in the 95th Congress to delete the Logan Act from the bill to amend the United States

criminal code.48 Senator James Allen insisted on reenacting the act in exchange for promising not

to prolong debate over the bill, and Senator Kennedy agreed to this. However, since the House

was unable to consider the criminal reform bill in the 95th Congress, the possibility of deleting the

act in a conference committee was eliminated. In early 2015, renewed interest in the act resulted

from a letter sent to Iran by 47 U.S. Senators. It is possible that this interest will result in

congressional consideration of whether the act should be repealed or retained.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall former President Carter traveled with the blessing of the sitting US President, acting as an ambassador emeritus, and as a show of respect when it wasn't opportune for the President to go himself. Or are you confusing his work with Habitat for Humanity as plotting US policy with a foreign power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Flynn contacting Russian officials without the express consent of the US State Department is illegal. Treason.

Do you know that for a fact, or speculating?

 

 

Get a Russian VISA and go directly to jail?

 

 

He didn't go to the Russian embassy, he went to the Russian ambassador. You don't call the ambassador for a VISA. You call to spill intelligence and rat out America. Flynn is a dirty rat fink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall former President Carter traveled with the blessing of the sitting US President, acting as an ambassador emeritus, and as a show of respect when it wasn't opportune for the President to go himself. Or are you confusing his work with Habitat for Humanity as plotting US policy with a foreign power?

 

No I'm referring to his interference in the negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians and his lobbyist activities for the Terrorist Group Hamas.

 

Or did those slip your memory?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I recall former President Carter traveled with the blessing of the sitting US President, acting as an ambassador emeritus, and as a show of respect when it wasn't opportune for the President to go himself. Or are you confusing his work with Habitat for Humanity as plotting US policy with a foreign power?

 

No I'm referring to his interference in the negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians and his lobbyist activities for the Terrorist Group Hamas.

 

Or did those slip your memory?

I must be too young for that bit of ancient history. Or maybe it just seemed silly to me. Work calls so I won't bother to refute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Team: Top Adviser Talked With Russian Ambassador

 

The man tapped to be national security adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, retired Gen. Michael Flynn, exchanged text messages and spoke with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December — around the time of the Obama administration's response to Russian interference during the presidential campaign, a spokesman for Trump acknowledged Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who can forget this blast from the past.

 

 

I have already.

 

But how about the Russian part that you still don't believe in the OP? The arrangement that the Trump team has confirmed?

 

large.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The sending of a Armored Brigade to Poland has been in the planning stages for months, you just don't pack up thousands of troops and hundreds of vehicles and send them to a foreign country on impulse. It requires a tremendous amount of planning, preparation, and negotiations. In the build up to both Gulf Wars, it took many months of build up before a single shot was fired. In the case of the 2nd war in Iraq, it was in the planning stages for 2 years before the first troops were even sent to the theater. Of course people like Hapless Jack, in the grip of severe TDS wants to make it out to be something it isn't. If Clinton were elected, the Trumpettes would be claiming Hillary was starting WW III. These folks will grasp at any straw. This is one armored brigade, about 4,500 troops, during the Cold War there were 300,000 American forces stationed in Europe.

 

Source that it has been in the planning stages for months. It's not that I don't trust you...

 

 

I have had 20 years experience in with the military, active duty and civilian employee including 6 years working in logistics at the US ARMY HQ Europe. Nothing on that scale happens quickly in the military. That operation was a response to the Russian invasion of Crimea and the fighting in the Ukraine as a NATO show of force. There have been articles in the news abut it for months, well before the election. People in Poland have been talking about it for months. The timing of the actual troop movement just happened to coincide with the most recent events. It is possible they bumped up the movement a couple of weeks because of that, but no more than a couple of weeks. Do you honestly think they have all of the ships, planes, logistics, and massive coordination necessary for that kind of operation just waiting to spring into action and can execute in a matter of 2 or 3 weeks? If so you have no concept of military operations.

 

 

I believe the US decision was made just before the election. End of Oct. A NATO deployment was planned in June or so. So what has this got to do with my assessment that it seems Obama is provoking armed conflict with Russia.

 

You believe a lot of things that aren't factual. The planning for that deployment was started long before last October. I still have many friends that work at the US Army HQ Europe. You and your elk have also criticized Obama for not standing up to Putin and when he does, you accuse him of wanting to start war with Russia. Sending one armored brigade to Poland is hardly an act of war. There is one small isolated part of Russia that borders Poland, Kaliningrad. The rest of Russia is a considerable distance away. In spite of what Putin might think, Ukraine is still an independent country, as are Lithuania, Belarus, Slovakia, Czech and Germany, the countries that surround Poland. Obama is merely asserting the right of the US as a NATO country to conduct military exercises in another NATO country and to let Putin know that we will do as we please within the NATO framework. Also, Poland is understandably nervous given Putin's disregard for the sovereignty of independent former Warsaw pact countries, and Russia's historical hatred of Poland. There is nothing wrong with the US giving support and reassurance to a staunch NATO ally. Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there. When the US invades Kaliningrad on the pretext that they invited us to, or because they historically were always part of Poland and we are just restoring it to it's rightful owner, then get back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The sending of a Armored Brigade to Poland has been in the planning stages for months, you just don't pack up thousands of troops and hundreds of vehicles and send them to a foreign country on impulse. It requires a tremendous amount of planning, preparation, and negotiations. In the build up to both Gulf Wars, it took many months of build up before a single shot was fired. In the case of the 2nd war in Iraq, it was in the planning stages for 2 years before the first troops were even sent to the theater. Of course people like Hapless Jack, in the grip of severe TDS wants to make it out to be something it isn't. If Clinton were elected, the Trumpettes would be claiming Hillary was starting WW III. These folks will grasp at any straw. This is one armored brigade, about 4,500 troops, during the Cold War there were 300,000 American forces stationed in Europe.

 

Source that it has been in the planning stages for months. It's not that I don't trust you...

 

 

I have had 20 years experience in with the military, active duty and civilian employee including 6 years working in logistics at the US ARMY HQ Europe. Nothing on that scale happens quickly in the military. That operation was a response to the Russian invasion of Crimea and the fighting in the Ukraine as a NATO show of force. There have been articles in the news abut it for months, well before the election. People in Poland have been talking about it for months. The timing of the actual troop movement just happened to coincide with the most recent events. It is possible they bumped up the movement a couple of weeks because of that, but no more than a couple of weeks. Do you honestly think they have all of the ships, planes, logistics, and massive coordination necessary for that kind of operation just waiting to spring into action and can execute in a matter of 2 or 3 weeks? If so you have no concept of military operations.

 

 

I believe the US decision was made just before the election. End of Oct. A NATO deployment was planned in June or so. So what has this got to do with my assessment that it seems Obama is provoking armed conflict with Russia.

 

You believe a lot of things that aren't factual. The planning for that deployment was started long before last October. I still have many friends that work at the US Army HQ Europe. You and your elk have also criticized Obama for not standing up to Putin and when he does, you accuse him of wanting to start war with Russia. Sending one armored brigade to Poland is hardly an act of war. There is one small isolated part of Russia that borders Poland, Kaliningrad. The rest of Russia is a considerable distance away. In spite of what Putin might think, Ukraine is still an independent country, as are Lithuania, Belarus, Slovakia, Czech and Germany, the countries that surround Poland. Obama is merely asserting the right of the US as a NATO country to conduct military exercises in another NATO country and to let Putin know that we will do as we please within the NATO framework. Also, Poland is understandably nervous given Putin's disregard for the sovereignty of independent former Warsaw pact countries, and Russia's historical hatred of Poland. There is nothing wrong with the US giving support and reassurance to a staunch NATO ally. Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there. When the US invades Kaliningrad on the pretext that they invited us to, or because they historically were always part of Poland and we are just restoring it to it's rightful owner, then get back to me.

 

 

Why on Earth would yo post all that Yada Yada Yada and not just post a citation proving your point.

 

 

Mind you, The exact date is irrelevant to my Question about why is Obama provoking the Russian Federation militarily? I'm sure you had a very rewarding career and we all thank you for your service but could just get to that point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about rodman? is the worm a rat?

 

Loretta better get hopping, time is running out.

 

Oh definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

The sending of a Armored Brigade to Poland has been in the planning stages for months, you just don't pack up thousands of troops and hundreds of vehicles and send them to a foreign country on impulse. It requires a tremendous amount of planning, preparation, and negotiations. In the build up to both Gulf Wars, it took many months of build up before a single shot was fired. In the case of the 2nd war in Iraq, it was in the planning stages for 2 years before the first troops were even sent to the theater. Of course people like Hapless Jack, in the grip of severe TDS wants to make it out to be something it isn't. If Clinton were elected, the Trumpettes would be claiming Hillary was starting WW III. These folks will grasp at any straw. This is one armored brigade, about 4,500 troops, during the Cold War there were 300,000 American forces stationed in Europe.

 

Source that it has been in the planning stages for months. It's not that I don't trust you...

 

I have had 20 years experience in with the military, active duty and civilian employee including 6 years working in logistics at the US ARMY HQ Europe. Nothing on that scale happens quickly in the military. That operation was a response to the Russian invasion of Crimea and the fighting in the Ukraine as a NATO show of force. There have been articles in the news abut it for months, well before the election. People in Poland have been talking about it for months. The timing of the actual troop movement just happened to coincide with the most recent events. It is possible they bumped up the movement a couple of weeks because of that, but no more than a couple of weeks. Do you honestly think they have all of the ships, planes, logistics, and massive coordination necessary for that kind of operation just waiting to spring into action and can execute in a matter of 2 or 3 weeks? If so you have no concept of military operations.

 

I believe the US decision was made just before the election. End of Oct. A NATO deployment was planned in June or so. So what has this got to do with my assessment that it seems Obama is provoking armed conflict with Russia.

You believe a lot of things that aren't factual. The planning for that deployment was started long before last October. I still have many friends that work at the US Army HQ Europe. You and your elk have also criticized Obama for not standing up to Putin and when he does, you accuse him of wanting to start war with Russia. Sending one armored brigade to Poland is hardly an act of war. There is one small isolated part of Russia that borders Poland, Kaliningrad. The rest of Russia is a considerable distance away. In spite of what Putin might think, Ukraine is still an independent country, as are Lithuania, Belarus, Slovakia, Czech and Germany, the countries that surround Poland. Obama is merely asserting the right of the US as a NATO country to conduct military exercises in another NATO country and to let Putin know that we will do as we please within the NATO framework. Also, Poland is understandably nervous given Putin's disregard for the sovereignty of independent former Warsaw pact countries, and Russia's historical hatred of Poland. There is nothing wrong with the US giving support and reassurance to a staunch NATO ally. Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there. When the US invades Kaliningrad on the pretext that they invited us to, or because they historically were always part of Poland and we are just restoring it to it's rightful owner, then get back to me.

 

Why on Earth would yo post all that Yada Yada Yada and not just post a citation proving your point.

 

 

Mind you, The exact date is irrelevant to my Question about why is Obama provoking the Russian Federation militarily? I'm sure you had a very rewarding career and we all thank you for your service but could just get to that point?

 

Building a need for the F35?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source that it has been in the planning stages for months. It's not that I don't trust you...

 

 

I have had 20 years experience in with the military, active duty and civilian employee including 6 years working in logistics at the US ARMY HQ Europe. Nothing on that scale happens quickly in the military. That operation was a response to the Russian invasion of Crimea and the fighting in the Ukraine as a NATO show of force. There have been articles in the news abut it for months, well before the election. People in Poland have been talking about it for months. The timing of the actual troop movement just happened to coincide with the most recent events. It is possible they bumped up the movement a couple of weeks because of that, but no more than a couple of weeks. Do you honestly think they have all of the ships, planes, logistics, and massive coordination necessary for that kind of operation just waiting to spring into action and can execute in a matter of 2 or 3 weeks? If so you have no concept of military operations.

 

 

I believe the US decision was made just before the election. End of Oct. A NATO deployment was planned in June or so. So what has this got to do with my assessment that it seems Obama is provoking armed conflict with Russia.

 

You believe a lot of things that aren't factual. The planning for that deployment was started long before last October. I still have many friends that work at the US Army HQ Europe. You and your elk have also criticized Obama for not standing up to Putin and when he does, you accuse him of wanting to start war with Russia. Sending one armored brigade to Poland is hardly an act of war. There is one small isolated part of Russia that borders Poland, Kaliningrad. The rest of Russia is a considerable distance away. In spite of what Putin might think, Ukraine is still an independent country, as are Lithuania, Belarus, Slovakia, Czech and Germany, the countries that surround Poland. Obama is merely asserting the right of the US as a NATO country to conduct military exercises in another NATO country and to let Putin know that we will do as we please within the NATO framework. Also, Poland is understandably nervous given Putin's disregard for the sovereignty of independent former Warsaw pact countries, and Russia's historical hatred of Poland. There is nothing wrong with the US giving support and reassurance to a staunch NATO ally. Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there. When the US invades Kaliningrad on the pretext that they invited us to, or because they historically were always part of Poland and we are just restoring it to it's rightful owner, then get back to me.

 

 

Why on Earth would yo post all that Yada Yada Yada and not just post a citation proving your point.

 

 

Mind you, The exact date is irrelevant to my Question about why is Obama provoking the Russian Federation militarily? I'm sure you had a very rewarding career and we all thank you for your service but could just get to that point?

 

Sure, I'll make it easy for you. You are full of shit. Go back to watching RTL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is what makes this forum so much fun. sometimes there will be this endless argument going on and between people who have an opinion but don't have many facts to back it up, The discussion rolls along wonderfully until one of the people who actually knows something will throw in actual information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have something here Gouv.

Maybe it is this that has inspired this craze of false facts certain Trump supporters are so fixated with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Molotov Jack® just got owned. Bigly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest if you want direct confirmation of what Happy Jack believes, you ask him. A full accounting of what Jack has told me would require sharing PM's. I won't do that.

If he sent you religious PMs, then wouldn't you debate those in the PM, rather than here?

 

As far as I've seen, Jack hasn't shared what you wrote, here in these threads. I've spoken with him on the phone a few times, he's rational, albeit with bizarre taste in vehicles and Presidents.

 

His beliefs? I could care as little about those as I care about the beliefs of someone who worships a magical star child with an ability to resurrect and turn water into tequila.

 

Thing is, I kinda get Jack's born-in-Canada hyperjingoism, persona or not. When I lived in Oz. I was so in love with the place that they could do no wrong, it was the most perfect spot on Earth. Unlike Jack, I didn't pick one side over the other, the Greens at the Hari Krishna buffet movie theater were just as awesome as the Liberals in North Sydney. But still, I kinda get where Jack is on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he sent you religious PMs, then wouldn't you debate those in the PM, rather than here?

 

No. Jack & PM's are not a good mix. An example of why recently blew up on him in the forums, which is why he's been scarce of late. Like others, I don't trust Jack enough to have 'private' conversations with the man.

 

As far as I've seen, Jack hasn't shared what you wrote, here in these threads. I've spoken with him on the phone a few times, he's rational, albeit with bizarre taste in vehicles and Presidents.

 

That's great, but entirely irrelevant to my point.

 

The belief I stated is a stock-standard article of Mormon faith. It's a part of their scriptures which their current, living prophet maintains is not allegory, metaphor, or fable but an accurate history of the pre-colonial American people.

 

Happy Jack has stated he is a believer in, and follower of, the LDS church. If you wish to question him about which parts of his religion he has lost faith in, that's between you & him. Until he denounces his claim faith as a Mormon though, I will quite reasonably assume he remains one and holds the standard set of beliefs that entails. Which means Native Americans were Jews who sinned so grievously against God he changed their skin colour to mark them as different from the white skinned people he found pure & delightsome.

 

His beliefs? I could care as little about those as I care about the beliefs of someone who worships a magical star child with an ability to resurrect and turn water into tequila.

 

You were the one to ask about whether he held that belief. So if you don't care, drop it. If you do care, stop claiming you don't.

 

Now, did you have a reason for dragging up a month old post from the previous page or were you just waffling again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If he sent you religious PMs, then wouldn't you debate those in the PM, rather than here?

 

No. Jack & PM's are not a good mix. An example of why recently blew up on him in the forums, which is why he's been scarce of late. Like others, I don't trust Jack enough to have 'private' conversations with the man.

 

As far as I've seen, Jack hasn't shared what you wrote, here in these threads. I've spoken with him on the phone a few times, he's rational, albeit with bizarre taste in vehicles and Presidents.

 

That's great, but entirely irrelevant to my point.

 

The belief I stated is a stock-standard article of Mormon faith. It's a part of their scriptures which their current, living prophet maintains is not allegory, metaphor, or fable but an accurate history of the pre-colonial American people.

 

Happy Jack has stated he is a believer in, and follower of, the LDS church. If you wish to question him about which parts of his religion he has lost faith in, that's between you & him. Until he denounces his claim faith as a Mormon though, I will quite reasonably assume he remains one and holds the standard set of beliefs that entails. Which means Native Americans were Jews who sinned so grievously against God he changed their skin colour to mark them as different from the white skinned people he found pure & delightsome.

 

His beliefs? I could care as little about those as I care about the beliefs of someone who worships a magical star child with an ability to resurrect and turn water into tequila.

 

You were the one to ask about whether he held that belief. So if you don't care, drop it. If you do care, stop claiming you don't.

 

Now, did you have a reason for dragging up a month old post from the previous page or were you just waffling again?

 

You could always block Mikes posts, rainy face. And you can quote me on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If he sent you religious PMs, then wouldn't you debate those in the PM, rather than here?

No. Jack & PM's are not a good mix. An example of why recently blew up on him in the forums, which is why he's been scarce of late. Like others, I don't trust Jack enough to have 'private' conversations with the man.

As far as I've seen, Jack hasn't shared what you wrote, here in these threads. I've spoken with him on the phone a few times, he's rational, albeit with bizarre taste in vehicles and Presidents.

That's great, but entirely irrelevant to my point.

 

The belief I stated is a stock-standard article of Mormon faith. It's a part of their scriptures which their current, living prophet maintains is not allegory, metaphor, or fable but an accurate history of the pre-colonial American people.

 

Happy Jack has stated he is a believer in, and follower of, the LDS church. If you wish to question him about which parts of his religion he has lost faith in, that's between you & him. Until he denounces his claim faith as a Mormon though, I will quite reasonably assume he remains one and holds the standard set of beliefs that entails. Which means Native Americans were Jews who sinned so grievously against God he changed their skin colour to mark them as different from the white skinned people he found pure & delightsome.

His beliefs? I could care as little about those as I care about the beliefs of someone who worships a magical star child with an ability to resurrect and turn water into tequila.

You were the one to ask about whether he held that belief. So if you don't care, drop it. If you do care, stop claiming you don't.

 

Now, did you have a reason for dragging up a month old post from the previous page or were you just waffling again?

I didn't see your response until today.

 

And if he didn't bring up these particulars of his religion, which he didn't, then it makes no sense for any of us to hold him responsible for what anyone believes, nor should he have to disavow anything.

 

It's a short step from that to holding Jews responsible for Jesus, or Muslims responsible for radical jihadism, Catholics for immediate forgiveness for child rapists, or atheists for Nissan Leafs.

 

As long as they are peaceful, nobody should have to apologize for their faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the Mormon stuff about Hapless was just smack talk - I didn't realize it was fact.

 

Explains a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there

I know it's an old thread, but this caught my eye...

 

WTF are you talking about? That's completely ridiculous.

 

A snippet from CNN's OEF timeline:

 

October 26, 2001 - British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram tells the House of Commons that Britain is deploying a force of 4,200 military personnel to Afghanistan.
November 1, 2001 - Turkey announces it will deploy troops to Afghanistan. Australia and Canada also agree to send forces.

November 6, 2001 - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder offers up to 3,900 troops for the effort.

November 7, 2001 - Italy says it will provide 2,700 troops.
November 9, 2001 - The Netherlands announces that they are prepared to send up to 1,400 troops to Afghanistan.
November 16, 2001 - French troops deploy for Afghanistan.

November 22, 2001 - Poland agrees to contribute up to 300 soldiers to OEF.

 

 

Edit: let's not forget, that by then the initial invasion was already well underway. Delta and SEALs and Rangers and CIA, embedded with Northern Alliance, overthrowing the Taliban Government. That phase of the war also included British, Canadian, and Australian operators...

 

 

If you meant the actual NATO operation, ISAF, which is a separate deal from OEF - that was a full NATO opp, and it started out under British command, which ought to tell you something about other NATO countries' involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there

I know it's an old thread, but this caught my eye...

 

WTF are you talking about? That's completely ridiculous.

 

A snippet from CNN's OEF timeline:

 

October 26, 2001 - British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram tells the House of Commons that Britain is deploying a force of 4,200 military personnel to Afghanistan.
November 1, 2001 - Turkey announces it will deploy troops to Afghanistan. Australia and Canada also agree to send forces.

November 6, 2001 - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder offers up to 3,900 troops for the effort.

November 7, 2001 - Italy says it will provide 2,700 troops.
November 9, 2001 - The Netherlands announces that they are prepared to send up to 1,400 troops to Afghanistan.
November 16, 2001 - French troops deploy for Afghanistan.

November 22, 2001 - Poland agrees to contribute up to 300 soldiers to OEF.

 

 

Edit: let's not forget, that by then the initial invasion was already well underway. Delta and SEALs and Rangers and CIA, embedded with Northern Alliance, overthrowing the Taliban Government. That phase of the war also included British, Canadian, and Australian operators...

 

 

If you meant the actual NATO operation, ISAF, which is a separate deal from OEF - that was a full NATO opp, and it started out under British command, which ought to tell you something about other NATO countries' involvement.

 

I said "For many years".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there

I know it's an old thread, but this caught my eye...

 

WTF are you talking about? That's completely ridiculous.

 

A snippet from CNN's OEF timeline:

 

October 26, 2001 - British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram tells the House of Commons that Britain is deploying a force of 4,200 military personnel to Afghanistan.
November 1, 2001 - Turkey announces it will deploy troops to Afghanistan. Australia and Canada also agree to send forces.

November 6, 2001 - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder offers up to 3,900 troops for the effort.

November 7, 2001 - Italy says it will provide 2,700 troops.
November 9, 2001 - The Netherlands announces that they are prepared to send up to 1,400 troops to Afghanistan.
November 16, 2001 - French troops deploy for Afghanistan.

November 22, 2001 - Poland agrees to contribute up to 300 soldiers to OEF.

 

 

Edit: let's not forget, that by then the initial invasion was already well underway. Delta and SEALs and Rangers and CIA, embedded with Northern Alliance, overthrowing the Taliban Government. That phase of the war also included British, Canadian, and Australian operators...

 

 

If you meant the actual NATO operation, ISAF, which is a separate deal from OEF - that was a full NATO opp, and it started out under British command, which ought to tell you something about other NATO countries' involvement.

 

I said "For many years".

 

 

200.gif#2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there

 

I know it's an old thread, but this caught my eye...

 

WTF are you talking about? That's completely ridiculous.

 

A snippet from CNN's OEF timeline:

 

October 26, 2001 - British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram tells the House of Commons that Britain is deploying a force of 4,200 military personnel to Afghanistan.

November 1, 2001 - Turkey announces it will deploy troops to Afghanistan. Australia and Canada also agree to send forces.

November 6, 2001 - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder offers up to 3,900 troops for the effort.

November 7, 2001 - Italy says it will provide 2,700 troops.

November 9, 2001 - The Netherlands announces that they are prepared to send up to 1,400 troops to Afghanistan.

November 16, 2001 - French troops deploy for Afghanistan.

November 22, 2001 - Poland agrees to contribute up to 300 soldiers to OEF.

 

 

Edit: let's not forget, that by then the initial invasion was already well underway. Delta and SEALs and Rangers and CIA, embedded with Northern Alliance, overthrowing the Taliban Government. That phase of the war also included British, Canadian, and Australian operators...

 

 

If you meant the actual NATO operation, ISAF, which is a separate deal from OEF - that was a full NATO opp, and it started out under British command, which ought to tell you something about other NATO countries' involvement.

I said "For many years".

Poland stuck with America after most countries got frustrated with Bush and bodies, and left Afghanistan, Poland also loyally helped Bush in Iraq, when most of the world shouted warnings from the sideline. Ignoring politics and electioneering, we owe them complete support against Russia if they want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the reasons I stated previously. I think the US government decided to interpret the same evidence that dissuades me from believing it was the Kremlin, as proof it was Russia,for political reasons. I hear we just sent thousand of tanks toward the Russian Border including for the first time into a former eastern block country (Poland)

 

I'm beginning to wonder if Obama has become so unhinged by the coming erasure of his failed presidency that he might actually think an armed confrontation with Russia is a fitting end to his presidency.

 

"Here you go Trump, fix this"

 

The intrusion into the DNC and Podesta's emails was amateurish and could be the work of any number of Hacking groups including ones in Russia or China.

 

The CIA is hanging their hat on opposition gossip research that was commissioned by the Democrats?

 

Research that was so comical it scooped up fake stories about golden showers on presidential beds in Moscow, posted by trolls on 4 chan.

 

There is a psychosis infecting Washington and it is making Trump look like the sanest man in town.

 

I bet there are even some of you here that would actually support a coup that threw out Trump on the promise of a new election.

 

The Left is having a psychotic break and you all need help.

 

Oh.... and help is coming in 1 week. :)

 

This is worth a double post:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxhMuQHQjw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

Not to mention AGW-ists who believe they can control climate or the abortionists who believe life is magically created as the child exits the birth canal and even go as far as to call it "science"..... :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

Well, with the possible exception of string theorists, why not indeed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

Not to mention AGW-ists who believe they can control climate or the abortionists who believe life is magically created as the child exits the birth canal and even go as far as to call it "science"..... :D:D

 

 

Or Fuk Tup Joe who thinks he has the cranial capacity to keep up with the people on this forum.

 

Yet another demonstration of the validity of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone explain to me how String Theory is a belief system. Is it similar to the Gravitational Theory belief system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

Not to mention AGW-ists who believe they can control climate or the abortionists who believe life is magically created as the child exits the birth canal and even go as far as to call it "science"..... :D:D

 

 

Or Fuk Tup Joe who thinks he has the cranial capacity to keep up with the people on this forum.

 

Yet another demonstration of the validity of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

 

You're kind of slow, aren't you? :ph34r:

 

200.gif#76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Sloop proved his point, Fuk Tup posts a video in response! How original!

 

Only, it wasn't a video.. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Or Fuk Tup Joe who thinks he has the cranial capacity to keep up with the people on this forum.

 

Yet another demonstration of the validity of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

 

You're kind of slow, aren't you? :ph34r:

 

200.gif#76

 

Oh, gee - zing

 

Your retorts are so pathetically infantile I thought I'd recommend a few to up your game.

 

Yer mama

Lalalalala - I can't hear you

Talk to the hand because the face ain't listening

Is that a buzzing noise?

Takes one to know one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

Sorry but the only think worthy of more ridicule than Mormonism is anything you say. At least it is possible that Jesus was a real person even if he wasn't the son of God. Maybe those crazy fuckers in the desert were out in the heat too long but there is some good wisdom in both parts of the bible. The Mormon religion on the other hand was founded by a con man, charlatan, liar with a penchant for young pussy and lots of it. His story as to how he came to possess the Book of Mormon is so ludicrous as to defy the common sense of anyone but white men, who also have a taste for young pussy and lots of it. Clearly the Book of Mormon is plagiarized directly from the bible with the names changed to fool the gullible. The world would be a far better place without the white shirted, tie wearing, buzz cut Mormon missionaries all over the world spreading a very special kind of bull shit. Read Jon Krakauer's book about the Mormons, Under the Banner of Heaven and get back to me about how they don't deserve ridicule. Plural wives indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

 

Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM.

 

PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger.

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private"

 

PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere.

 

Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

 

Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM.

 

PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger.

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private"

 

PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere.

 

Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM?

 

Flames go out yet, Dum Dum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there

I know it's an old thread, but this caught my eye...

 

WTF are you talking about? That's completely ridiculous.

 

A snippet from CNN's OEF timeline:

 

October 26, 2001 - British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram tells the House of Commons that Britain is deploying a force of 4,200 military personnel to Afghanistan.

November 1, 2001 - Turkey announces it will deploy troops to Afghanistan. Australia and Canada also agree to send forces.

November 6, 2001 - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder offers up to 3,900 troops for the effort.

November 7, 2001 - Italy says it will provide 2,700 troops.

November 9, 2001 - The Netherlands announces that they are prepared to send up to 1,400 troops to Afghanistan.

November 16, 2001 - French troops deploy for Afghanistan.

November 22, 2001 - Poland agrees to contribute up to 300 soldiers to OEF.

 

 

Edit: let's not forget, that by then the initial invasion was already well underway. Delta and SEALs and Rangers and CIA, embedded with Northern Alliance, overthrowing the Taliban Government. That phase of the war also included British, Canadian, and Australian operators...

 

 

If you meant the actual NATO operation, ISAF, which is a separate deal from OEF - that was a full NATO opp, and it started out under British command, which ought to tell you something about other NATO countries' involvement.

I said "For many years".

Poland stuck with America after most countries got frustrated with Bush and bodies, and left Afghanistan, Poland also loyally helped Bush in Iraq, when most of the world shouted warnings from the sideline. Ignoring politics and electioneering, we owe them complete support against Russia if they want it.

 

 

OK, my bad. I thought he was saying before others... he was saying after...?

 

Problem is, that's just as ridiculously false.

 

Poland brought home most of its combat troops in 2014, along with every other ally, when ISAF fromally ended. Since then, they've had a few hundred advisors in place, as part of RSM... But so do 38 other countries.

 

Troop levels by country, as of July 2016, less than a year ago:

 

http://www.rs.nato.int/images//20160614_2016-06-rsm-placemat.pdf

 

 

I was in no way questioning that we owe them protection from Putin. We owe them that, regardless.

 

And I noted their contribution to the Iraq war.

 

And I'm not questioning their contributions to the Afghanistan war, either.

 

I'm just defending every other NATO participant in those wars, from the false allegation that Poland was "the only NATO country" contributing - at any point - never mind, "for many years".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years, in support of the US military operations there

I know it's an old thread, but this caught my eye...

 

WTF are you talking about? That's completely ridiculous.

 

A snippet from CNN's OEF timeline:

 

October 26, 2001 - British Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram tells the House of Commons that Britain is deploying a force of 4,200 military personnel to Afghanistan.

November 1, 2001 - Turkey announces it will deploy troops to Afghanistan. Australia and Canada also agree to send forces.

November 6, 2001 - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder offers up to 3,900 troops for the effort.

November 7, 2001 - Italy says it will provide 2,700 troops.

November 9, 2001 - The Netherlands announces that they are prepared to send up to 1,400 troops to Afghanistan.

November 16, 2001 - French troops deploy for Afghanistan.

November 22, 2001 - Poland agrees to contribute up to 300 soldiers to OEF.

 

 

Edit: let's not forget, that by then the initial invasion was already well underway. Delta and SEALs and Rangers and CIA, embedded with Northern Alliance, overthrowing the Taliban Government. That phase of the war also included British, Canadian, and Australian operators...

 

 

If you meant the actual NATO operation, ISAF, which is a separate deal from OEF - that was a full NATO opp, and it started out under British command, which ought to tell you something about other NATO countries' involvement.

I said "For many years".

Poland stuck with America after most countries got frustrated with Bush and bodies, and left Afghanistan, Poland also loyally helped Bush in Iraq, when most of the world shouted warnings from the sideline. Ignoring politics and electioneering, we owe them complete support against Russia if they want it.

 

 

OK, my bad. I thought he was saying before others... he was saying after...?

 

Problem is, that's just as ridiculously false.

 

Poland brought home most of its combat troops in 2014, along with every other ally, when ISAF fromally ended. Since then, they've had a few hundred advisors in place, as part of RSM... But so do 38 other countries.

 

Troop levels by country, as of July 2016, less than a year ago:

 

http://www.rs.nato.int/images//20160614_2016-06-rsm-placemat.pdf

 

 

I was in no way questioning that we owe them protection from Putin. We owe them that, regardless.

 

And I noted their contribution to the Iraq war.

 

And I'm not questioning their contributions to the Afghanistan war, either.

 

I'm just defending every other NATO participant in those wars, from the false allegation that Poland was "the only NATO country" contributing - at any point - never mind, "for many years".

 

Hey Frenchie, stop being a dumbass. You must have a reading comprehension problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM.

 

PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger.

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private"

 

PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere.

 

Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM?

Welcome back, Jack. Where've ya been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Frenchie, stop being a dumbass. You must have a reading comprehension problem.

 

Hey, I admit it's not a terribly important point... except I know a lot of Canadians who spent a lot of time in & around Kandahar...

 

 

But what is it I'm supposedly not comprehending properly?

 

You said "Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years".

 

It's not true. Other NATO countries have been providing troops, all along. There is no period of time when Poland was the only NATO country providing troops.

 

 

The only thing I don't understand is why you're resorting to insults, instead of just correcting the statement, or explaining what you were trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

 

Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM.

 

PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger.

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private"

 

PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere.

 

Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM?

 

 

That block of ice you were sitting on finally melt?

 

As usual, you are picking nits to try and justify your egregious behavior. That you view any and all communication as public is sad, but as I expressed in our communications years ago I had reasons to suspect your integrity in this matter.

 

PM = "Private Message" in almost every context I've seen it. The whole point is that a "Public" message here, or on any other forum, or on Facebook, is a regular message. A PM here at SA is culturally considered private. You can certainly flaunt that convention, but we will think less of you for it. If that is actually possible, I mean, to think less of you.

 

http://www.internetslang.com/PM-meaning-definition.asp

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/pm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

 

Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM.

 

PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger.

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private"

 

PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere.

 

Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM?

 

Flames go out yet, Dum Dum?

 

 

Clearly he's ameliorated the problem enough to come back.

 

COOLING_GEL_box.png

 

114.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey Frenchie, stop being a dumbass. You must have a reading comprehension problem.

 

Hey, I admit it's not a terribly important point... except I know a lot of Canadians who spent a lot of time in & around Kandahar...

 

 

But what is it I'm supposedly not comprehending properly?

 

You said "Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years".

 

It's not true. Other NATO countries have been providing troops, all along. There is no period of time when Poland was the only NATO country providing troops.

 

 

The only thing I don't understand is why you're resorting to insults, instead of just correcting the statement, or explaining what you were trying to say.

 

 

Watching too much Trump shit would be my guess.

 

It's contagious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM.

 

PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger.

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private"

 

PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere.

 

Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM?

 

 

That block of ice you were sitting on finally melt?

 

As usual, you are picking nits to try and justify your egregious behavior. That you view any and all communication as public is sad, but as I expressed in our communications years ago I had reasons to suspect your integrity in this matter.

 

PM = "Private Message" in almost every context I've seen it. The whole point is that a "Public" message here, or on any other forum, or on Facebook, is a regular message. A PM here at SA is culturally considered private. You can certainly flaunt that convention, but we will think less of you for it. If that is actually possible, I mean, to think less of you.

 

http://www.internetslang.com/PM-meaning-definition.asp

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/pm

 

 

So Hapless has trouble grasping the meaning of "Private".

 

Apparently it is just an alternative public.

 

Why am I not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching too much Trump shit would be my guess.

 

It's contagious.

soak_ed's not like that.

 

s'why I'm confused about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey Frenchie, stop being a dumbass. You must have a reading comprehension problem.

 

Hey, I admit it's not a terribly important point... except I know a lot of Canadians who spent a lot of time in & around Kandahar...

 

 

But what is it I'm supposedly not comprehending properly?

 

You said "Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years".

 

It's not true. Other NATO countries have been providing troops, all along. There is no period of time when Poland was the only NATO country providing troops.

 

 

The only thing I don't understand is why you're resorting to insults, instead of just correcting the statement, or explaining what you were trying to say.

 

My point is exactly what I said. The Polish military has been involved in Afghanistan since 2002 and was in Iraq from 2003 to 2008. Poland has a very small military, the entire country only has about 38 million people. I was just trying to point out that Poland has been a steady presence in Afghanistan in support of the US effort since the beginning. The other NATO countries that have supported the effort there haven't been as consistent or committed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

 

 

Since you acknowledge that anyone that uses a preface like that IS indeed looking for private conversation, therefore anyone responding to it should also be able to assume privacy, no?

 

So how do you justify using excerpts from THIS conversation, which YOU started with the subject "I decided this should be private".

 

I would like to understand how you rationalize sharing parts of that conversation which you explicitly requested be private and I participated in under that assumption.

 

thought-it-was-private.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

You may think it's silly & wrong to mock silly & wrong beliefs. I don't. You're in PA, it's going to happen. And I mock far more than Mormon beliefs. You just picked up on one occasion and ignored the fact I have mocked Christianity & Scientology.

 

...

 

Oh look, Jack's recovered from his butt-hurt and wants to play. Let me summarise for you:

  • PM's are considered "Private Messages" in the vast majority of cases and definitely here.
  • I don't change my principles just because you give me "permission" to do so - private messages remain private.
  • You've already proven incapable of honesty regarding private messages, Happy.
  • We all know your prior socks. Pretending your Mormon faith was a secret is not convincing anyone.

 

However, I am 100% willing to accept your word should you wish to deny said beliefs. Do you reject both the scriptural basis in the Book of Mormon, not to mention the declarations of multiple latter day prophets & apostles, regarding the Lamanites being the early Native Americans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

Since you acknowledge that anyone that uses a preface like that IS indeed looking for private conversation, therefore anyone responding to it should also be able to assume privacy, no?

 

So how do you justify using excerpts from THIS conversation, which YOU started with the subject "I decided this should be private".

 

I would like to understand how you rationalize sharing parts of that conversation which you explicitly requested be private and I participated in under that assumption.

 

attachicon.gifthought-it-was-private.jpg

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always put jack on ignore petal. Or use your new trademarked 'block the quote butthurt avoider' software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're in PA, it's going to happen. And I mock far more than Mormon beliefs.

But try mocking me back and I will tell everyone that i have put you on ignore. Ha ha that will teach you a lesson! [/quote.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

Well, with the possible exception of string theorists, why not indeed?

I can assure you, String Theory, in all of its breathless beauty, has as much to do with science as does Pentecostalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lifer - did Bent fuck your girlfriend in high school or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You may think it's silly & wrong to mock silly & wrong beliefs. I don't. You're in PA, it's going to happen. And I mock far more than Mormon beliefs. You just picked up on one occasion and ignored the fact I have mocked Christianity & Scientology.

Obviously that's your choice, and it puts the Anarchy into SA, which is important to me.

 

I take my cue from Secular Humanists. While I'm not an atheist, I'm impressed with the ease that Secular Humanists have to be respectful of the religions of those who respect their atheism.

 

I think that when people feel self-conscious or bad about their beliefs, that the world becomes a bit less of a humane place. All religions are weird, that's what makes them so fucking gloriously awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

 

 

Since you acknowledge that anyone that uses a preface like that IS indeed looking for private conversation, therefore anyone responding to it should also be able to assume privacy, no?

 

So how do you justify using excerpts from THIS conversation, which YOU started with the subject "I decided this should be private".

 

I would like to understand how you rationalize sharing parts of that conversation which you explicitly requested be private and I participated in under that assumption.

 

attachicon.gifthought-it-was-private.jpg

 

 

Jack came out of the box strong, but BJ, well BJ just...

xMYzTLz.gif

Run Jack! Run!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to the point of the original thread, I am wondering if Happy Jack is finally willing to concede that there just *might* be some inappropriate relations between Team Trump and the Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey Frenchie, stop being a dumbass. You must have a reading comprehension problem.

 

Hey, I admit it's not a terribly important point... except I know a lot of Canadians who spent a lot of time in & around Kandahar...

 

 

But what is it I'm supposedly not comprehending properly?

 

You said "Poland was the only NATO country to provide troops in Afghanistan for many years".

 

It's not true. Other NATO countries have been providing troops, all along. There is no period of time when Poland was the only NATO country providing troops.

 

 

The only thing I don't understand is why you're resorting to insults, instead of just correcting the statement, or explaining what you were trying to say.

 

My point is exactly what I said. The Polish military has been involved in Afghanistan since 2002 and was in Iraq from 2003 to 2008. Poland has a very small military, the entire country only has about 38 million people. I was just trying to point out that Poland has been a steady presence in Afghanistan in support of the US effort since the beginning. The other NATO countries that have supported the effort there haven't been as consistent or committed.

 

 

I'm with you until that last sentence. WHY do you feel a need to slag other NATO countries? Especially when it's FALSE?

 

 

Start with what I know: Canada. You could argue that they're less consistent, since they pulled oout completely at the end of ISAF, make no contribution to RSM, and took no part in Iraq. But they're still a good comparison, because they're a bit smaller (35 million).

 

They contributed slightly more troops (2800 at their peak, vs Poland's 2600 at their peak), but they got stuck with one of the worst Provinces, Kandahar: so whereas Poland suffered 42 casualties, Canada lost 157 soldiers in Afghanistan: nearly 4 times the casualties.

 

Even if you include Iraq, where Poland lost 23... Canada still sacrificed more than twice the number, out of a smaller population. So who the hell are you calling "less committed"?

 

 

This started off minor... but I'll admit, now you've pissed me off. So... let's compare to the elephant in the room: the UK. They're a bigger country, but still less than twice the population (64 million).

 

Poland, at their peak, had 2600 troop in Afghanistan; they've had 42 soldiers die there. The UK, at their peak, they had 9500 troops, in Helmand alone (not sure how many in the rest of the country). Helmand's an even shittier place than Kandahar: the UK have had 455 deaths.

 

Less than double the population, nearly 4 times the troops, more than 10 times the casualties.

 

 

In Iraq, Poland contributed 2500 troops, and lost 23.

 

The UK contributed 18000 during the initial invasion, then scaled down to about 8-9k for the next few years. They had 180 casualties.

 

Less than double the population, more than 7 (later 3) times the number of troops, and 8 times the casualties.

 

 

 

Even allowing for the difference in population? You've got no fucking call saying they're less committed or consistent an ally.

 

 

 

FWIW: I'm not enjoying this, at all.

 

Why the fuck couldn't you just have said Poland's been a steadfast ally, and the US owes them, without denigrating other NATO allies?

 

If you'd said that Poland's contributions don't get the recognition or the credit they deserve from the US - I would have sat there nodding and agreeing with you - thinking, how true that is for so many allies...

 

But no - instead, you had to go and try to pull the same shit, yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lifer - did Bent fuck your girlfriend in high school or something?

Not that I know of. I don't think girls are his thing...NTTIA...ect ect. Thus the name Bent Sailor. Bent and I used to converse and we actually agree on many things such as Australian Gun laws, but we had some spirited discussions about Australian politics but when you prove him wrong he turns into a petulant child. He contradicts himself endlessly, has to have the last word and I cant stand know alls. Pulling his pony tail is just a hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to the point of the original thread, I am wondering if Happy Jack is finally willing to concede that there just *might* be some inappropriate relations between Team Trump and the Russians.

nyet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lifer - did Bent fuck your girlfriend in high school or something?

Not that I know of. I don't think girls are his thing...NTTIA...ect ect. Thus the name Bent Sailor. Bent and I used to converse and we actually agree on many things such as Australian Gun laws, but we had some spirited discussions about Australian politics but when you prove him wrong he turns into a petulant child. He contradicts himself endlessly, has to have the last word and I cant stand know alls. Pulling his pony tail is just a hobby.

 

 

My girlfriend in HS loved me to pull on her pony tail. Gave me some leverage, in a particular position.

 

It would appear you and Bent have a close relationship....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lifer - did Bent fuck your girlfriend in high school or something?

Not that I know of. I don't think girls are his thing...NTTIA...ect ect. Thus the name Bent Sailor. Bent and I used to converse and we actually agree on many things such as Australian Gun laws, but we had some spirited discussions about Australian politics but when you prove him wrong he turns into a petulant child. He contradicts himself endlessly, has to have the last word and I cant stand know alls. Pulling his pony tail is just a hobby.

My girlfriend in HS loved me to pull on her pony tail. Gave me some leverage, in a particular position.

 

It would appear you and Bent have a close relationship....

We do. He is my bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lifer - did Bent fuck your girlfriend in high school or something?

Not that I know of. I don't think girls are his thing...NTTIA...ect ect. Thus the name Bent Sailor. Bent and I used to converse and we actually agree on many things such as Australian Gun laws, but we had some spirited discussions about Australian politics but when you prove him wrong he turns into a petulant child. He contradicts himself endlessly, has to have the last word and I cant stand know alls. Pulling his pony tail is just a hobby.

 

 

My girlfriend in HS loved me to pull on her pony tail. Gave me some leverage, in a particular position.

 

 

Now there's a retroactive fantasy if ever I heard one. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really learned my lesson with Jack after that time I shared my mistress's name and my wife's email address with him in a PM. I won't do that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really learned my lesson with Jack after that time I shared my mistress's name and my wife's email address with him in a PM. I won't do that again.

There is so much to this story. Did they connect with each other, become fast friends and now it just isn't the same anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to the point of the original thread, I am wondering if Happy Jack is finally willing to concede that there just *might* be some inappropriate relations between Team Trump and the Russians.

 

The really funny thing is that if Jack just said, "Jeez, what was I thinking," instead of doubling/tripling/quadrupling down every time someone calls BS, he'd actually not appear to be a complete douche baguette. There are people in this world, Trump, Jack, that absolutely can't be wrong. Ever. No matter what. They think it's a sign of weakness to be wrong, when if fact, showing you are fallible and willing to admit when you are wrong shows integrity. With power, these kinds people are dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

 

Since you acknowledge that anyone that uses a preface like that IS indeed looking for private conversation, therefore anyone responding to it should also be able to assume privacy, no?

 

So how do you justify using excerpts from THIS conversation, which YOU started with the subject "I decided this should be private".

 

I would like to understand how you rationalize sharing parts of that conversation which you explicitly requested be private and I participated in under that assumption.

 

thought-it-was-private.jpg

HJ has to be one of the most disengenuous fucks I have ever come across. The fact that he is "religious" is something I'm not sure should surprise me or something I should consider typical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, mike.

 

Happy is Mormon (according to what he has stated in public under various accounts and in private under this one to me specifically). The Lamanite / Native American connection is a fundamental part of Mormon doctrine, still stated as factual by it's leader & prophet. Being a faithful Mormon means accepting the doctrines of the LDS Church & accepting the Prophet as being the mouthpiece of the Church.

 

Personally, I'm going to accept Jack's earlier statements regarding him being a faithful Mormon. You are free to doubt his true beliefs however you like, but that's between you & him.

I could care less about his "true beliefs."

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

 

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

 

 

Bent and BJ for that matter have my permission, although they don't require it, to post any part of any conversation we have had in this forum, any other forum of via PM.

 

PM after all means Personal Messenger not Private Messenger.

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

I live by one rule and is serves well in the digital age. "Assume nothing is private"

 

PS: you might ask Bent to post where I disclosed to him my personal religious belief or affiliation on here, in private or elsewhere.

 

Hint: He won't be able to do it so brace for some lame excuse about honorable people don't post PM even when I grant him permission to do so. Hey, here is an idea. Hey Bent do I have your permission to post our entire PM?

 

 

That block of ice you were sitting on finally melt?

 

As usual, you are picking nits to try and justify your egregious behavior. That you view any and all communication as public is sad, but as I expressed in our communications years ago I had reasons to suspect your integrity in this matter.

 

PM = "Private Message" in almost every context I've seen it. The whole point is that a "Public" message here, or on any other forum, or on Facebook, is a regular message. A PM here at SA is culturally considered private. You can certainly flaunt that convention, but we will think less of you for it. If that is actually possible, I mean, to think less of you.

 

http://www.internetslang.com/PM-meaning-definition.asp

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/pm

 

 

How about this context asswipe.

 

Capture.jpg

 

 

But your complaint is Bullshit anyway. Any pretense to private was lost when you lied about me in public and the PM proved it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If anyone writes to me, phones me or communicates with me and they do not preface it with something along the line "Can I tell you something in confidence?", they should not expect that is is confidential. Especially if they subsequently lie about the PM in public. Additionally, if the communication is any of the following; hostile, angry, threatening, contractual or unsolicited. In most of those cases even a request for confidence can be ignored.

 

 

 

Since you acknowledge that anyone that uses a preface like that IS indeed looking for private conversation, therefore anyone responding to it should also be able to assume privacy, no?

 

So how do you justify using excerpts from THIS conversation, which YOU started with the subject "I decided this should be private".

 

I would like to understand how you rationalize sharing parts of that conversation which you explicitly requested be private and I participated in under that assumption.

 

attachicon.gifthought-it-was-private.jpg

 

 

Would have stayed that way if you had not lied.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's silly and wrong to ridicule any kind of faith. If you want to critique the actions of a religion from Scientology to Baptist, that's something else. Actions mean something, they effect others.

But beliefs ... we all have ridiculous beliefs, including those who eschew religion. If you ridicule Mormon belief, then why stop there? Ridicule Muslim belief, and Cherokee belief, Koorie belief too, and ridicule the beliefs of String Theorists while you're at it.

 

You may think it's silly & wrong to mock silly & wrong beliefs. I don't. You're in PA, it's going to happen. And I mock far more than Mormon beliefs. You just picked up on one occasion and ignored the fact I have mocked Christianity & Scientology.

 

...

 

Oh look, Jack's recovered from his butt-hurt and wants to play. Let me summarise for you:

  • PM's are considered "Private Messages" in the vast majority of cases and definitely here.
  • I don't change my principles just because you give me "permission" to do so - private messages remain private.
  • You've already proven incapable of honesty regarding private messages, Happy.
  • We all know your prior socks. Pretending your Mormon faith was a secret is not convincing anyone.

 

However, I am 100% willing to accept your word should you wish to deny said beliefs. Do you reject both the scriptural basis in the Book of Mormon, not to mention the declarations of multiple latter day prophets & apostles, regarding the Lamanites being the early Native Americans?

 

 

In other words you know you lied about me sharing my religious affiliation with you. While I don't need your permission, especially since you lied. The question is still on the table. Will you permit me to post our conversation? Or you can simply admit you lied and apologize.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't both of you just shut the fuck up about it?

 

Nobody cares.

 

Publish and be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this context asswipe.

Wow. Imagine it being a "Personal Messenger" rules out that it is for sending "Private Messages".

 

But let's play your little word game... do you consider your "personal" life to be a matter for public consumption? Or is it possible that you accept "personal" as meaning "private & not to be shared"?

 

But your complaint is Bullshit anyway. Any pretense to private was lost when you lied about me in public and the PM proved it.

Happy, you are living in an alternate reality if you think that the exposure of that PM proved BJ had lied about you in public.

 

You're a hypocrite, Jack. Own it and move on. Or not, it's fucking hilarious watching you crash and burn so hard... repeatedly. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words you know you lied about me sharing my religious affiliation with you. While I don't need your permission, especially since you lied. The question is still on the table. Will you permit me to post our conversation? Or you can simply admit you lied and apologize.

Asked and answered, Happy Jack. Have fun trying to distract the masses from your self-immolation.

 

Note: I never said you shared you religious affiliation in PM. I said we talked about it & that I don't share the details of those conversations.

Your religious affiliation was public knowledge you had raised under various socks over the years. But nice try nonetheless. Were

you not already known for trying to twist the truth, it might have slipped past unnoticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost like Jack enjoys looking like an idiot. When someone says "It's personal," that means fuck off it's private. The entire world knows this. Douche nozzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More to the point of the original thread, I am wondering if Happy Jack is finally willing to concede that there just *might* be some inappropriate relations between Team Trump and the Russians.

 

The really funny thing is that if Jack just said, "Jeez, what was I thinking," instead of doubling/tripling/quadrupling down every time someone calls BS, he'd actually not appear to be a complete douche baguette. There are people in this world, Trump, Jack, that absolutely can't be wrong. Ever. No matter what. They think it's a sign of weakness to be wrong, when if fact, showing you are fallible and willing to admit when you are wrong shows integrity. With power, these kinds people are dangerous.

 

 

You said the "I" word - Integrity. It's largely irrelevant in any discussion about Happy Jack. Or Donald Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites