On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:53:31 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Lets get back on topic. Why can't we take a look at Kerry's
record as a reservist? Perhaps he was not reporting as required
by law.

How much reporting was he required to do in the "Ready
Reserves-Inactive" status?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...by_Reserve.pdf


Why don't you tell us?

BTW, that document you posted only applies to those who have completed
their, "statutory military obligation" which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT. (paragraph 2)








Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT.


If Horvath is enough of a racist to keep making a point that he find's Kerry
"French looking" expect even worse when Obama runs.

RB

Nah, Obama looks like Horass' boyfriend.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT.


If Horvath is enough of a racist to keep making a point that he find's
Kerry
"French looking" expect even worse when Obama runs.

RB

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:56:11 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:53:31 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Lets get back on topic. Why can't we take a look at Kerry's
record as a reservist? Perhaps he was not reporting as required
by law.

How much reporting was he required to do in the "Ready
Reserves-Inactive" status?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...by_Reserve.pdf


Why don't you tell us?

BTW, that document you posted only applies to those who have completed
their, "statutory military obligation" which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT. (paragraph 2)


Not that you will be able to read down to paragraph 3, which states:

...." you will consider yourself released from all active duty and
transferred to inactive duty in the U.S. Naval Reserve."

Now tell me again how you are AWOL from inactive duty.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...ctive_Duty.pdf

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:45:12 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Lets get back on topic. Why can't we take a look at Kerry's
record as a reservist? Perhaps he was not reporting as required
by law.

How much reporting was he required to do in the "Ready
Reserves-Inactive" status?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...by_Reserve.pdf


Why don't you tell us?

BTW, that document you posted only applies to those who have completed
their, "statutory military obligation" which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT. (paragraph 2)


Not that you will be able to read down to paragraph 3, which states:


It's not applicable because he is not in compliance with paragraph 2.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:02:50 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:45:12 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Lets get back on topic. Why can't we take a look at Kerry's
record as a reservist? Perhaps he was not reporting as required
by law.

How much reporting was he required to do in the "Ready
Reserves-Inactive" status?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...by_Reserve.pdf


Why don't you tell us?

BTW, that document you posted only applies to those who have completed
their, "statutory military obligation" which the French-looking John
Kerry DID NOT. (paragraph 2)


Not that you will be able to read down to paragraph 3, which states:


It's not applicable because he is not in compliance with paragraph 2.

Then why don't you take it up with the Navy, as they obviously differ
with your interpretation? Until such time as you can convince the
Navy that your position should take precedence over their's, I think
I'll accept that you are out of step with the Navy, rather than they
were wrong and you and Ted Sampley are right.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:20:52 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Then why don't you take it up with the Navy, as they obviously differ
with your interpretation? Until such time as you can convince the
Navy that your position should take precedence over their's, I think
I'll accept that you are out of step with the Navy, rather than they
were wrong and you and Ted Sampley are right.


You whacko liberals are taking the Navy's side? How unusual.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
Then why don't you take it up with the Navy, as they obviously differ
with your interpretation? Until such time as you can convince the
Navy that your position should take precedence over their's, I think
I'll accept that you are out of step with the Navy, rather than they
were wrong and you and Ted Sampley are right.


You whacko liberals are taking the Navy's side? How unusual.

We actually think for a living.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 07:12:58 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 03:20:52 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:

Then why don't you take it up with the Navy, as they obviously differ
with your interpretation? Until such time as you can convince the
Navy that your position should take precedence over their's, I think
I'll accept that you are out of step with the Navy, rather than they
were wrong and you and Ted Sampley are right.


You whacko liberals are taking the Navy's side? How unusual.


Well, in this case everyone is free to have an opinion, but only the
Navy has a vote, so yeah, I tend to believe the official record over
the musings of the uninformed, but that is just me

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:45:12 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:
It's not applicable because he is not in compliance with paragraph 2.

Horass is a benefit of title ix.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."