Michael Oke, II wrote: > I didn't miss anything nor do I have a problem.
Wow! I'm impressed! > > I know where your post appeared and after what, along with what you were > attempting, poorly, to comment on. That said, madigan was commenting on > the President so my comments on your post(s) stand and you have, yet > again, failed to address the issue and instead choose to run around in > circles. Probably acceptable in your country. Let's see, you posted : >>> Now, his(1) post referred to the President of the United States any you, by >>> your own admission, agree that there is nobody above him(2) in the chain of >>> command so exactly who would he(3) be questioning in order to do what he(4) >>> should? Now here we have 4 references to "his", "him" and "he". They could be referred to MadAgain, the president, or the lord Himself, go figure. Could you clarify to whom are you referring in each of the four so we can have an intelligent conversation? That is, of course, if you can manage one (an *intelligent* conversation I mean, not a pissing contest), after all we should consider you are missing nothing and "have no problem". So you might not be interested, who knows. > > Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >> Michael Oke, II wrote: >>> You can figure out what "falls above" means or you can't, makes no >>> difference to me. Again, I'm using English, your inability to >>> understand it isn't my problem. Remove yourself from the discussion if >>> you aren't able to communicate effectively. >>> >>> Let me quote your previous post: "Please, someone with >>> some experience tell the dumb ass what will happen to him if he >>> questions decisions up the chain of command." >>> >>> Now, his post referred to the President of the United States any you, by >>> your own admission, agree that there is nobody above him in the chain of >>> command so exactly who would he be questioning in order to do what he >>> should? >>> >> LOL >> Now I see your problem. You missed the fact that my comment was >> immediately after MadAgain's phrase "A commander who refuses to seal the >> borders could be considered treasonous". It was referred to *that* >> phrase and the dumb ass I was referring to is MadAgain. So now that >> we've cleared that up maybe *you* might tell him what will happen to him >> questioning his co's motives and allegiance. >> _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
