In your example its understandable but if its a grand herotic moment then it's 
remembered by the person very well. Ask a ww2 vet about things and they still 
remember but ask them what they did the tuesday before they were shipped out 
and they have no clue.

 Too me it's like this, I thank him for defending our country but lying and 
trying to use that to try and perswade votes crosses the line. Even if it was 
true I would admire all the thousands of other soldiers who have done herotic 
secret missions and take no credit and don't try and use it to advance 
themselfs in any position but to go and say you did that when you didn't to try 
and use that kind of support to get votes is messed up and insults all those 
who do or have done it.

----------------------------------------
From: S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:51 PM
To: CF-Community <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: America's Insurgents 

> not at all but if he was involved with "secret operations"
> then he'd also be under a non disclosure act which he
> couldnt disclose it.
> I mean hell, I was there too and on my secret mission I
> took out wang foo chung, 5 clicks south of hanoi ;)
> I mean you can't prove me wrong cause it was a secret
> mission right?

> I have too many family in military that see right through
> that, military records showed he was else where at that
> time, and like i said, if he was on "secret missions" he
> cant disclose it, especially to the entire world during a
> presidental race. Sure it was great that he was there(and
> everyone who was there or has servered is a hero) but
> don't claim to be a hero in that reguard.

> You can still be there and not be in combat and be
> equally important and you can say what you want about it,
> you may not think so highly, others might reconize it as
> being smarter and finding a way to serve and keep your
> ass in 1 piece. We are free to look at it how we want.
> But in a pres race don't claim something that cant be
> proven like that.

Well it was an off-hand comment about something that happened 40
someodd years ago and was made at the spur of the moment in an
unrelated conversation as I recall... it's very difficult for me to
lend any credence to any line of reasoning that begins with that kind
of comment being worthy of scrutiny. If I were talking to my
grandfather and he told me in an off-hand conversation that he was a
cop when he was 20 and I happen to know that wasn't true, I'm not
going to start calling him a liar. Maybe he had a similar experience
and it was just easier to say that -- or maybe he just mis-spoke or I
misheard, or who knows. In order for it to mean anything, there has to
be corroboration with a 2nd incident -- ther has to be a pattern of
it, at which point I might start wondering if he's becoming senile or
deluded in his old age, but before that point, I have to consider it a
fluke.

s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?

add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework

http://macromedia.breezecentral.com/p49777853/
http://www.sys-con.com/author/?id=4806
http://www.fusiontap.com



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Get Instant Hacker Protection, Virus Detection, Antispam & Personal Firewall.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=62

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153330
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to