If you are unable to understand the references in that statement, I don't think that there is much that I can do to help you but let me try. The first would reference the initial poster, ie madigan (it might be helpful for you, if you could learn to spell people's names, then you might not get so confused) while all subsequent uses would refer to the individual previously defined in the post. ie the President of the United States.
Please try to keep up and stop using words that you have no idea of the definition of. That would be words such as intelligent as it is very obvious that you understand pissing contest. That, however, is not something that I choose to participate in, especially over the internet. ::michael Ricardo Aráoz wrote: > 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. >>> > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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.
