On Aug 22, 7:43*am, hk wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
om...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:12:21 -0400, hk wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:38:39 -0400, hk
wrote:

I don't think one day of McCain's military experience is relevant
to the job he is seeking.
You sure as hell did when Kerry was running.
Only in comparison to Bush's dangerous service with the Texas Air
National Guard, and Cheney and Rumsfeld's war mongering in the face
of non-service.

By itself, it has no relevance. What's relevant is having the smarts
to avoid wars or to find a way to extricate a country from an
ongoing war.
So let me see if I understand you.

1 - By comparison, Kerry's military combat record was relevant
becasue
Bush never saw combat and thus was the superior candidate.

2 - Kerry had military combat experience and the VP and SecDef at
that
time didn't thus making him the superior candidate.

3 - Based on one and two, Kerry was the superior candidate because he
had more military experience than the Administration had.

4 - It was relevant then, but not relevant now.

I understand completely.

I know some farmers who would love to hire you to fertilize their
fields because their entire herd of cows aren't as full of what makes
the grass grow green as you are.
Both Kerry and Bush used their military records in their campaigns..
Compared to Bush's holiday with the TANG, Kerry's "military" record
was real. Bush's was b.s. In choosing a POTUS, though, I don't think
either's military record was relevant. Cheney and Rumsfeld were simply
war mongerers, and compared to their non-experience, Kerry's service
was relevant.

The point is, you really don't understand. Too abstract, I suppose..
There's abstract and then there abstractly obtuse.

You clearly specialize in the obtusely abstract.
I also specialize in moderating a section of a discussion board that has
thousands of daily contributors. You?
Let's see. *Thousands of messages, that's at least 2000. *Assume it takes
an average of 15 seconds to "moderate" each message.

15 seconds X 2000 msgs = 30K seconds.
30K sec / 60 = 500 minutes
500 min / 60 = 8.3 hours

How do you find time to fish?

The discussion board has several thousand new posts a day. It is a very
active board. There are subsections. There's a moderator for each
subsection. Therefore, there are a number of moderators. My subsection
averages 25 or so new or add-on posts a day, one of the slowest. But
that's because I am a relatively "new" mod, and "promotion" is based on
seniority. :)

Anyway, it doesn't take long to read through them, and there ain't much to
moderate since posters like The Seven Little Schitts are banned for life
after their second snotty post. I do read through some other subsections,
though, out of my interest in their subject matter, and if I find a snotty
post, I kill it and send a copy to that subsection's "mod." Lots of heated
discussions, too, on many subject matters, but no personal insults.
Reggie, Herring, DK, BAR, Just Wait, Loggy, Mike, et cetera, probably
wouldn't last long enough to post twice.

I read another, much newer message board, but unfortunately the moderators
there don't do a very good job, and it was taken over by the attack dogs.
Last time I checked, it was averaging less than one post a day on the
entire message board.

Such is life.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

You're entirely welcome. I do this because it gives the schittheads like
Loogie and Reggie something to file away, so that if the subject comes
up in the future, and I state my little section gets an average of 11 or
51 posts a day, either of them will be able to post, "Ohhhh....he
lied...last time he said there were 25 posts a day."

It's important to leave some sand on the floor for the dumfochs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry, everyone here knows that you are incapable of telling the
truth......
about anything......