Michael Oke, II wrote: > 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.
I feared so, then your comment makes no sense at all in the context of the debate. Lets see, the post said something like : ------------------------------------------------------ > Michael Madigan wrote: >> A commander who refuses to seal the borders could be considered treasonous > You can tell this ass has never seen real action. Please, someone with some experience tell the dumb ass what will happen to him if he questions decisions up the chain of command. You can't have it both ways, either you can question whatever you want in whatever situation (which would make some previous rep posts either stupid or ), or you can't question your leadership in a time of war and crisis. CHOOSE !!! ------------------------------------------------------ And your comment was (I took the liberty to replace the "him", "he", etc according to your excuses...erhhh explanations)(I didn't replace the "any" for "and", after all you said you wrote comprehensible English) : ------------------------------------------------------ > Now, MadAgain's post referred to the President of the United States any you, by your own admission, agree that there is nobody above the president in the chain of command so exactly who would the president be questioning in order to do what the president should? ------------------------------------------------------ To what I will now answer : Don't be idiotic! I never said the president should question anyone! I said that someone should tell MadAgain what would happen to him (MadAgain) for questioning the decisions made up the chain of command (that's the president). Did you get it? MadAgain questions president. That baaaad. Ricardo not say President question president. That stooopid. Ricardo say Madagain question president then Madagain kaput. Ricardo say someone explain dumb ass (MadAgain) that fact. Ricardo say Reps can't have it both ways, either they are traitors now or they were hypocrites before. Is that simple enough for you? > > Please try to keep up and stop using words that you have no idea of the > definition of. I guess you meant to say "Please try to keep up, and stop using words of whose definition you have no idea 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. Pity that it's been so easy so far to wind you up and get you to keep participating. hahaha _______________________________________________ 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.
