Oh please... Actually, YOU "sought the cover of" the internet. I offered to prove the following, which is now public, in real life with an officer of the courts. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3404332#post3404332 You haven't even said if you're a combat veteran or not, let alone proved YOUR claim I'm a "chickenhawk." No surprise you're not man enough to apologize either. At this point I feel more sorry for you than anything else.
I was never in combat, not really. I saw fuzzy patch on a scope once, pushed a button, it disappeared. 'bout it.
Hey guys, let's step back for a minute. A little civility and respect would be nice too, but at least a pause in the dispute is a good start. This is an anonymous internet posting board and the reality is you trust (or not) others by the accumulation and totality of their postings. Beyond that, "proof" will never be forthcoming, I've seen too many challenges over the years that go absolutely nowhere â not much point in getting worked up over it, only raises the blood pressure. Please don't forget we have a very useful Ignore function so use it generously for those who annoy you. Thanks.
Could you be so kind as to explain this for me? Just so I'll know what it is I'm supposedly guilty of.
He is upset because he knows we are armed as well as civilians can be armed. He is a vet and knows what an M-14 is. He may be indignant that we would own such heavy iron.
I just sent something to RCG so give him a chance to look it over and I'm sure you'll hear something back. In the meantime I'd like you to think about something. First, you admitted I had every reason to question your claims given your vague references. At the very least, I feel that justifies my questions. Second, I have neither said nor done anything that would lead you to question my background, yet you did. I figure it was out of spite or jealousy more than anything else. Maybe you have seen too many movies and think a Counterintelligence Specialist is something that is so sexy you'd never run across it on the internet. Well, you just did. What I sent RCG backs up each and every one of my claims and once he's read it, I feel confident he will concur. Third, you have been very assholish with your comments both to me and several others. You've also pretended to be a disinterested third party (remember saying "I'm not trying to influence anyone here") when you are anything but. Do you know what you call someone who pretends to be a disinterested third party but isn't? A shill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill So, either you are a shill or you advocate for who you advocate for. There is no third direction. Fourth, perhaps describing you as a shill, given that you pretended to be a disinterested third party, was not entirely accurate. Your name calling seems to be calculated to get a rise out of people and distract from points being made. You tend to get very angry when you run out of counterarguments and you then resort to name calling (your posting history bears this out). Pussy Paultard pacifist comes to mind. You've enjoyed limited success with this tactic. People who try to get personal online tend to be trying to derail the conversation. Do you know what you call someone who tries to derail an online conversation? A troll. Ergo, you acted like both a shill and a troll. As they say, if the shoe fits. Maybe you aren't, but you've definitely acted like it. Hence, when I labeled you a shill, I was technically justified. You fit the profile of a textbook shill who switches to trolling when the mood strikes. Being human I may be wrong, but I rather doubt it at this point. So, going forward, if you want to be taken seriously, I would recommend easing up on the name calling and sticking to your arguments, flawed as they may be.
I couldn't care less about this anymore because yesterday you lost all credibility with me, whether you've served or not. So you can have the last word and even make up some new lies if you want, I really don't care.
Now you magically don't care anymore? What happened to wanting to expose me? You must be bi polar or something because yesterday you were going to expose me. Whatever kid. Your posting history bears out what I've described and anyone who cares to look will see who is lying. I also find it very telling that you flat refused to come out from behind your designated spokespeople when I required no such protection. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but, well, you get the idea....or maybe you really don't.
Real news - Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Ron Paulâs Iran Policy Most Accurate Paul receives more support from U.S. military than all Republican candidates combined Thursday, January 5, 2012 Despite numerous Republican candidates attacking Ron Paul over his âdangerousâ foreign policy, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer praised Paul for being the âmost accurateâ out of all the GOP contenders when it came to his perspective on Iran. more - http://www.infowars.com/lt-col-tony-shaffer-ron-pauls-iran-policy-most-accurate/