Kerry and the liberal media think they have gotten a "Swift Boat Vet"
 

Kerry and the liberal media think they have gotten a "Swift Boat Vet"
Taken From Sources
Aug 19,2004

Kerry and the liberal media think they have gotten a "Swift Boat
Vet"

The campaign of John F Kerry continues to spoon feed the media in the
USA tidbits of untruth and directions to carry out attacks covertly
against not only GW Bush but private citizen's that are brave enough
to vocally support him.

Here is a perfect example. MSNBC, AP and other media outlets ran with
this top story Thursday, Aug 19, 2004.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"Military records counter a Kerry critic"

MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F.
Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic
presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win
medals, contradict his own version of events.

Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in
Vietnam , has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts
Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet
Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star
for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act,
contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons
fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

From first glance one might say, "Ohh, these guys may not be telling
the truth". But only if you take this article for its word. Why didn't
the reporter writing the story put out a copy of this service record
or at least the details pertaining to the incident? Let's see John F
Kerry's records.

Because it shows that the source of the contradictory statement is no
other than John F Kerry himself.

Read the official statement by Larry Thurlow about his military
records.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release August 19, 2004

Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow

I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star
was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely
described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small
arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other
accounts from my shipmates-there was no hostile enemy fire directed at
my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action
report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the
only officer who filed a report describing his version of the
incidents that occurred on the river that day.

It was not until I had left the Navy-approximately three months after
I left the service-that I was notified that I was to receive a
citation for my actions on that day.

I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my
efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and
to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat
and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat
sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided
immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking
and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.

After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water,
John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled
the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on
Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water.
Kerry's boat returned several minutes later-under no hail of enemy
gunfire-to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before
another boat was going to pick him up.

Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this
incident-the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only
briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr.
Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day
reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The
only damage on that day was done to boat three-a result of the
underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from
enemy gunfire.

And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally
acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the
other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a
direct contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the
Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left
Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention.

These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry
campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left
the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left
behind?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well does that raise a lot of issues!

The source is John F Kerry and that is the least of John F Kerry's
worries.



Notes: http://www.swiftvets.com/

Why didn't
the reporter writing the story put out a copy of this service record
or at least the details pertaining to the incident? Let's see John F
Kerry's records.

Yawn. You guys expect Hannity and Limbaugh to what, read these over the air? It
takes two minutes to find these records, less time than it takes to repeat the
hate-radio lies that Kerry won't release them:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_...y_records.html

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Why didn't
the reporter writing the story put out a copy of this service record
or at least the details pertaining to the incident? Let's see John F
Kerry's records.

Yawn. You guys expect Hannity and Limbaugh to what, read these over the
air? It
takes two minutes to find these records, less time than it takes to repeat
the
hate-radio lies that Kerry won't release them:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_...y_records.html

Chuck you are being partisan and very dishonest. If Kerry would allow the
Navy to provide those who ask a copy of his entire service records then all
of the questions would be answered. However, Kerry will not authorize the
release of his service records by the Navy. Why would Kerry refuse to allow
his entire military service records to be made public? He must be hiding
something.

Again, all of this will be fully and completely cleared up the with release
of all of Kerrys military service records.

Bert Robbins wrote:



Again, all of this will be fully and completely cleared up the with release
of all of Kerrys military service records.

Yours would be more interesting. Were you 4F or Section 8?


--
Save America - Defeat Bush!

There is another set of records containing the narratives used to make the
decisions as to whether or not to award a medal. These can be released by Mr
Kerry simply signing a DD260 release form which he declines to do.
It seems to me that these would go a long ways toward clearing things up
and would vindicate him (or hang him?).
For what its worth (not much in a boating group!)
Gordon

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Why didn't
the reporter writing the story put out a copy of this service record
or at least the details pertaining to the incident? Let's see John F
Kerry's records.

Yawn. You guys expect Hannity and Limbaugh to what, read these over the
air? It
takes two minutes to find these records, less time than it takes to repeat
the
hate-radio lies that Kerry won't release them:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_...y_records.html

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:53:45 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:



Again, all of this will be fully and completely cleared up the with
release
of all of Kerrys military service records.

Yours would be more interesting. Were you 4F or Section 8?

What were you, Harry?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

He had hinted in this NG about putting on his *uniform* during a Vets Day.
It turned out that he was only kidding (bad joke) and said the uniform was
his Good Humor Man uniform. Pretty pathetic.

I never served. My number was never called during the lottery. But I thank
all the Vets who did serve, including Kerry, and will never make light over
the honor of being able to wear the uniform and serve the Country.

"JohnH" wrote in message

What were you, Harry?

Don't you recall, John? Harry's claim is that he served his country in time
of war, but as a civilian, employed by some AF General, somewhere "...in
Southeast Asia..." Could have been Peace Corps in Pattaya.

Harry must have read about a civilian who worked for a General in SE Asia.

It probably was in a magazine his doctor doctor wife picked up while waiting
in a real doctors lobby.

Whenever Harry posts personal information in rec.boats it is always a
fabrication of the mind, due to his low self esteem.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message

What were you, Harry?

Don't you recall, John? Harry's claim is that he served his country in
time
of war, but as a civilian, employed by some AF General, somewhere "...in
Southeast Asia..." Could have been Peace Corps in Pattaya.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"JohnH" wrote in message

What were you, Harry?

Don't you recall, John? Harry's claim is that he served his country in time
of war, but as a civilian, employed by some AF General, somewhere "...in
Southeast Asia..." Could have been Peace Corps in Pattaya.

So, are you attempting to say that, if you were a civilian, that that
doesn't constitute serving your country?

"basskisser" wrote in message

So, are you attempting to say that, if you were a civilian, that that
doesn't constitute serving your country?

No, bass -- if I were attempting to say that, that's what would be printed
on the page. It does get tiresome having to explain things to you.

The point regarding Harry is that he continually and deliberately obfuscates
the nature of his claimed national service. Many here have plainly said 'I
served in the Air Force', or '...in the Army'. Some have said they did not
serve. Some said they served in the Peace Corps. But Harry never has
clearly stated the type of service he performed, or for whom.

Now, there is no hard requirement to serve, or to state the nature of one's
service, and that is OK if one prefers not to say. But Harry has repeatedly
strongly implied some level of official service in SEA during the time of
the Vietnam war, thereby trying to claim some level of associated status or
familiarity, while steadfastly refusing to specify the nature of the
service, or to whom provided. This tactic is typical of those lying about
their service for personal aggrandizement.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Gawkin's idea of national service is to put on a uniform, burn villages,
and kill women and children. And then rape them.

Ah, been watching your old video tapes of Kerry's testimony again, huh?
(do you get hard when he talks like that?)

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

So, are you attempting to say that, if you were a civilian, that that
doesn't constitute serving your country?

No, bass -- if I were attempting to say that, that's what would be printed
on the page. It does get tiresome having to explain things to you.

The point regarding Harry is that he continually and deliberately obfuscates
the nature of his claimed national service. Many here have plainly said 'I
served in the Air Force', or '...in the Army'. Some have said they did not
serve. Some said they served in the Peace Corps. But Harry never has
clearly stated the type of service he performed, or for whom.

Is there a reason why you think that Harry should tell people like you
all about himself? I mean, after all, facts don't matter to you one
bit, and you've proven it. You continually make false claims,
assumptions, and allegations with total disregard to ANY facts.

Now, there is no hard requirement to serve, or to state the nature of one's
service, and that is OK if one prefers not to say. But Harry has repeatedly
strongly implied some level of official service in SEA during the time of
the Vietnam war, thereby trying to claim some level of associated status or
familiarity, while steadfastly refusing to specify the nature of the
service, or to whom provided. This tactic is typical of those lying about
their service for personal aggrandizement.

No, it's not. Some people are not proud of the harm they've caused
other people. My uncle served valiantly in WWII, and had medals and
commendations to prove just that, and NEVER talked about it.
Absolutely refused.

"basskisser" wrote in message

Is there a reason why you think that Harry should tell people like you
all about himself?

Read the entire message prior to responding. This point is addressed in my
next paragraph.

...You continually make false claims,
assumptions, and allegations ....

Ummm.... I believe that should be "wild allegations".

This tactic is typical of those lying about
their service for personal aggrandizement.

.....My uncle served valiantly in WWII, and...NEVER talked about it.
Absolutely refused.

Two completely different circumstances. Surely even you can see that. Your
Uncle (many thanks) simply never talked about it. Period. Harry repeatedly
leads everyone to believe that he served, and then refuses any detail or
further information.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Is there a reason why you think that Harry should tell people like you
all about himself?

Read the entire message prior to responding. This point is addressed in my
next paragraph.

...You continually make false claims,
assumptions, and allegations ....

Ummm.... I believe that should be "wild allegations".

This tactic is typical of those lying about
their service for personal aggrandizement.

.....My uncle served valiantly in WWII, and...NEVER talked about it.
Absolutely refused.

Two completely different circumstances. Surely even you can see that. Your
Uncle (many thanks) simply never talked about it. Period. Harry repeatedly
leads everyone to believe that he served, and then refuses any detail or
further information.

Ah, so, is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order
for it to be valid, you must include proof?
(NOW we are getting somewhere, I can't WAIT for you to show proof for
all of the dumb assumptions YOU'VE made)

basskisser wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Is there a reason why you think that Harry should tell people like you
all about himself?

Read the entire message prior to responding. This point is addressed in my
next paragraph.

...You continually make false claims,
assumptions, and allegations ....

Ummm.... I believe that should be "wild allegations".

This tactic is typical of those lying about
their service for personal aggrandizement.

.....My uncle served valiantly in WWII, and...NEVER talked about it.
Absolutely refused.

Two completely different circumstances. Surely even you can see that. Your
Uncle (many thanks) simply never talked about it. Period. Harry repeatedly
leads everyone to believe that he served, and then refuses any detail or
further information.

Ah, so, is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order
for it to be valid, you must include proof?
(NOW we are getting somewhere, I can't WAIT for you to show proof for
all of the dumb assumptions YOU'VE made)

Gawkin's proof comes out of a bottle.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"basskisser" wrote in message

Ah, so, is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order
for it to be valid, you must include proof?

Excuse me, I'm trying to work through your sentence structure here. Does
the above mean that if someone makes a claim, I must include proof ? That
could prove difficult. Or, does it mean that if someone makes a claim, then
that person must include proof ?

John,

Yes, Basskisser did say ... when someone makes a claim you (John) must
include proof in order for it to be valid.

I hope you are not too busy to keep up with it all.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Ah, so, is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order
for it to be valid, you must include proof?

Excuse me, I'm trying to work through your sentence structure here. Does
the above mean that if someone makes a claim, I must include proof ? That
could prove difficult. Or, does it mean that if someone makes a claim,
then
that person must include proof ?

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:3BlXc.319665$%

John,

Yes, Basskisser did say ... when someone makes a claim you (John) must
include proof in order for it to be valid.

I thought as much.

Well then, in answer to his posted query: No, that is not my contention.

I am very glad you are not going to assume responsibility for proving every
claim anyone makes. It is too much responsibility for any one person. Now
if you could find 2 or 3 friends to help, I am sure you would be able to
validate all legitimate claims made by everyone in the world. ; )



"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:3BlXc.319665$%

John,

Yes, Basskisser did say ... when someone makes a claim you (John) must
include proof in order for it to be valid.

I thought as much.

Well then, in answer to his posted query: No, that is not my contention.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Ah, so, is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order
for it to be valid, you must include proof?

Excuse me, I'm trying to work through your sentence structure here. Does
the above mean that if someone makes a claim, I must include proof ? That
could prove difficult. Or, does it mean that if someone makes a claim, then
that person must include proof ?

As usual, you don't understand, and it leads to stupid question after
stupid question. John, if you honestly don't understand the above,
then you are too dumb to be involved in the thread.

Now, I'll ask one more time. Do YOU find it intelligent to get some
idea in your head, then post that allegation, or assumption AS FACT,
without any proof of those? Let's take an example, shall we? Because I
stated that my mother was an alcoholic, you and others automatically
got it in your ignorant minds that I have FAS, and stated that AS
FACT, did you not? Now, do you think that it's prudent to
automatically ASSUME that? If so, you are dumber than I ever imagined.
If not, then why do you DO just that?

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:3BlXc.319665$%_6.241779@attbi_s01...
John,

Yes, Basskisser did say ... when someone makes a claim you (John) must
include proof in order for it to be valid.

I hope you are not too busy to keep up with it all.

You ARE stupid!!!!! Please show where I said that, will you?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Comcast News" wrote in message news:3BlXc.319665$%

John,

Yes, Basskisser did say ... when someone makes a claim you (John) must
include proof in order for it to be valid.

I thought as much.

Then you thought wrong, dolt.

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:k4mXc.237634$eM2.191917@attbi_s51...
I am very glad you are not going to assume responsibility for proving every
claim anyone makes. It is too much responsibility for any one person. Now
if you could find 2 or 3 friends to help, I am sure you would be able to
validate all legitimate claims made by everyone in the world. ; )



This is too funny....John Smith!! After proving yourself a liar, you
are now proving yourself dumber and dumber.....

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Ah, so, is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order
for it to be valid, you must include proof?

Excuse me, I'm trying to work through your sentence structure here. Does
the above mean that if someone makes a claim, I must include proof ?
That
could prove difficult. Or, does it mean that if someone makes a claim,
then
that person must include proof ?

As usual, you don't understand, and it leads to stupid question after
stupid question. John, if you honestly don't understand the above,
then you are too dumb to be involved in the thread.

Now, I'll ask one more time. Do YOU find it intelligent to get some
idea in your head, then post that allegation, or assumption AS FACT,
without any proof of those? Let's take an example, shall we? Because I
stated that my mother was an alcoholic, you and others automatically
got it in your ignorant minds that I have FAS, and stated that AS
FACT, did you not? Now, do you think that it's prudent to
automatically ASSUME that? If so, you are dumber than I ever imagined.
If not, then why do you DO just that?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Basskisser,
I am not assuming your suffer from FAS because your mother was an alcoholic,
your inability to follow any train of thought, your severe anti-social
behavior, the fact that you think it is ok for your brother to go AWOL,
because he is smarter than everyone else, (plus too many other examples to
list), AND the fact that your mother was alcoholic is the reason why
everyone believes you either have FAS or some other brain disorder, possible
from excessive drug use.

Did I say that slow enough for you?




"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Ah, so, is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order
for it to be valid, you must include proof?

Excuse me, I'm trying to work through your sentence structure here.
Does
the above mean that if someone makes a claim, I must include proof ?
That
could prove difficult. Or, does it mean that if someone makes a claim,
then
that person must include proof ?

As usual, you don't understand, and it leads to stupid question after
stupid question. John, if you honestly don't understand the above,
then you are too dumb to be involved in the thread.

Now, I'll ask one more time. Do YOU find it intelligent to get some
idea in your head, then post that allegation, or assumption AS FACT,
without any proof of those? Let's take an example, shall we? Because I
stated that my mother was an alcoholic, you and others automatically
got it in your ignorant minds that I have FAS, and stated that AS
FACT, did you not? Now, do you think that it's prudent to
automatically ASSUME that? If so, you are dumber than I ever imagined.
If not, then why do you DO just that?

To help you through this trying time in your life, I will show you were
you said that John should must include proof for it to be valid.

"... that, if someone makes a claim, in order for it to be valid, you must
include proof?"

OK, you talking to John, and asked him that question. You did not say "John
makes a claim" you used the pronoun "someone", but you did not tell John
that "someone" or "one" must include proof, you told John (using the pronoun
"you" in your conversation with John) that John must include proof.

Again, if you print this out and reread it, I am sure it will make sense to
you.

If you talk to a professional, I am sure they can help you with some
"tricks" to help you follow a logical train of thought.




"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:3BlXc.319665$%_6.241779@attbi_s01...
John,

Yes, Basskisser did say ... when someone makes a claim you (John) must
include proof in order for it to be valid.

I hope you are not too busy to keep up with it all.

You ARE stupid!!!!! Please show where I said that, will you?

"basskisser" wrote in message


Now, I'll ask one more time. Do YOU find it intelligent to get some
idea in your head, then post that allegation, or assumption AS FACT,
without any proof of those?

One more time? You've never asked me that question before. You did ask
"...is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order for it to
be valid, you must include proof?" I answered that one as well as I was
able, given the difficulty in ascertaining your exact meaning. What you've
written above is an entirely new question.


Let's take an example, shall we? Because I
stated that my mother was an alcoholic, you and others automatically
got it in your ignorant minds that I have FAS, and stated that AS
FACT, did you not?

Yes, I did not. I have never stated or implied any such thing.


Now, do you think that it's prudent to
automatically ASSUME that?

I don't think it is prudent to automatically assume anything.


If so, you are dumber than I ever imagined.

Well, that would be very dumb indeed.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message


Now, I'll ask one more time. Do YOU find it intelligent to get some
idea in your head, then post that allegation, or assumption AS FACT,
without any proof of those?

One more time? You've never asked me that question before. You did ask
"...is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order for it to
be valid, you must include proof?" I answered that one as well as I was
able, given the difficulty in ascertaining your exact meaning. What you've
written above is an entirely new question.


Let's take an example, shall we? Because I
stated that my mother was an alcoholic, you and others automatically
got it in your ignorant minds that I have FAS, and stated that AS
FACT, did you not?

Yes, I did not. I have never stated or implied any such thing.


Now, do you think that it's prudent to
automatically ASSUME that?

I don't think it is prudent to automatically assume anything.

Then why do you continually DO such? Need some examples?


If so, you are dumber than I ever imagined.

Well, that would be very dumb indeed.

It certainly WOULD.

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:j%qXc.73676$mD.20089@attbi_s02...
To help you through this trying time in your life, I will show you were
you said that John should must include proof for it to be valid.

"... that, if someone makes a claim, in order for it to be valid, you must
include proof?"

OK, you talking to John, and asked him that question. You did not say "John
makes a claim" you used the pronoun "someone", but you did not tell John
that "someone" or "one" must include proof, you told John (using the pronoun
"you" in your conversation with John) that John must include proof.

Again, if you print this out and reread it, I am sure it will make sense to
you.

If you talk to a professional, I am sure they can help you with some
"tricks" to help you follow a logical train of thought.


Holy ****, you are MUCH dumber than previously thought! If you can't
understand simple sentences, it would make me wonder why you don't
have any simple, logical thinking.

Basskisser,
This is another example of an addled brain.

John didn't say any of the things you are accusing him of.

I did.


ps - Do you like the way I kept it simple for you?


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message


Now, I'll ask one more time. Do YOU find it intelligent to get some
idea in your head, then post that allegation, or assumption AS FACT,
without any proof of those?

One more time? You've never asked me that question before. You did ask
"...is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order for it
to
be valid, you must include proof?" I answered that one as well as I was
able, given the difficulty in ascertaining your exact meaning. What
you've
written above is an entirely new question.


Let's take an example, shall we? Because I
stated that my mother was an alcoholic, you and others automatically
got it in your ignorant minds that I have FAS, and stated that AS
FACT, did you not?

Yes, I did not. I have never stated or implied any such thing.


Now, do you think that it's prudent to
automatically ASSUME that?

I don't think it is prudent to automatically assume anything.


If so, you are dumber than I ever imagined.

Well, that would be very dumb indeed.

"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:PrFXc.318517$a24.172231@attbi_s03...
Basskisser,
This is another example of an addled brain.

John didn't say any of the things you are accusing him of.

I did.

What do you expect from someone that thinks developing developing roof
details for warehouses is a high level job....




ps - Do you like the way I kept it simple for you?


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message


Now, I'll ask one more time. Do YOU find it intelligent to get some
idea in your head, then post that allegation, or assumption AS FACT,
without any proof of those?

One more time? You've never asked me that question before. You did
ask
"...is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order for
it
to
be valid, you must include proof?" I answered that one as well as I
was
able, given the difficulty in ascertaining your exact meaning. What
you've
written above is an entirely new question.


Let's take an example, shall we? Because I
stated that my mother was an alcoholic, you and others automatically
got it in your ignorant minds that I have FAS, and stated that AS
FACT, did you not?

Yes, I did not. I have never stated or implied any such thing.


Now, do you think that it's prudent to
automatically ASSUME that?

I don't think it is prudent to automatically assume anything.


If so, you are dumber than I ever imagined.

Well, that would be very dumb indeed.

P. Fritz,
My guess is Basskisser's employer is stuck with him. They had to hire
someone who is mentally handicapped so they could participate in some
federal bids.

I would also guess that Basskisser's role in "developing roofing details"
was deciding what kind of gravel they should use with the tar.




"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:PrFXc.318517$a24.172231@attbi_s03...
Basskisser,
This is another example of an addled brain.

John didn't say any of the things you are accusing him of.

I did.

What do you expect from someone that thinks developing developing roof
details for warehouses is a high level job....




ps - Do you like the way I kept it simple for you?


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message


Now, I'll ask one more time. Do YOU find it intelligent to get
some
idea in your head, then post that allegation, or assumption AS
FACT,
without any proof of those?

One more time? You've never asked me that question before. You did
ask
"...is it your contention that, if someone makes a claim, in order
for
it
to
be valid, you must include proof?" I answered that one as well as I
was
able, given the difficulty in ascertaining your exact meaning. What
you've
written above is an entirely new question.


Let's take an example, shall we? Because I
stated that my mother was an alcoholic, you and others
automatically
got it in your ignorant minds that I have FAS, and stated that AS
FACT, did you not?

Yes, I did not. I have never stated or implied any such thing.


Now, do you think that it's prudent to
automatically ASSUME that?

I don't think it is prudent to automatically assume anything.


If so, you are dumber than I ever imagined.

Well, that would be very dumb indeed.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message ...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:PrFXc.318517$a24.172231@attbi_s03...
Basskisser,
This is another example of an addled brain.

John didn't say any of the things you are accusing him of.

I did.

What do you expect from someone that thinks developing developing roof
details for warehouses is a high level job....

My god you are stupid!! Where to **** do you get such drivel in your stupid head?
Where did I EVER say that I "develop roof details for warehouses"?????????
Does this ignorant crap just *POP* into your feeble little mind?

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:NZFXc.191183$8_6.41308@attbi_s04...
P. Fritz,
My guess is Basskisser's employer is stuck with him. They had to hire
someone who is mentally handicapped so they could participate in some
federal bids.

I would also guess that Basskisser's role in "developing roofing details"
was deciding what kind of gravel they should use with the tar.

Showing your stupidity again, huh?
Just for the information, I'm a structural engineer.
Now, do you know WHY gravel is used, sometimes?
I don't have an employer, I'm self employed.
So, you see, even once again, you are showing your ignorance by making
assumptions, and idiot statements.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
I don't have an employer, I'm self employed.
So, you see, even once again, you are showing your ignorance by making
assumptions, and idiot statements.

Just as I thought, no one would hire you, due to your poor social skills.

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:%fNXc.320460$a24.84244@attbi_s03...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
I don't have an employer, I'm self employed.
So, you see, even once again, you are showing your ignorance by making
assumptions, and idiot statements.

Just as I thought, no one would hire you, due to your poor social skills.

Have any evidence of that? I've worked for other firms up until a few
years ago, I slowly made the transition to self employment. I continue
to work with other firms on a daily basis. The last time I was
employed by a firm, I was with them for 10 years.

"Comcast News" wrote in message news:NTqXc.320398$%_6.142487@attbi_s01...
Basskisser,
I am not assuming your suffer from FAS because your mother was an alcoholic,

Did I EVER say she drank when she was pregnant with me? See how stupid
your assumptions can be?

your inability to follow any train of thought,

Oh, I can follow a train of thought endlessly, when it makes some
sense. Your drivel, however, is tough to grasp.

your severe anti-social
behavior,

What makes you think that I have "anti-social behavior"? Another
assumption, at best, AND wrong. I belong to civic clubs, charitable
organizations, do volunteer work, have a large circle of friends, etc.

the fact that you think it is ok for your brother to go AWOL,

That conclusively points to FAS???
because he is smarter than everyone else,

Not "everyone else", just dumb ****s like YOU.

AND the fact that your mother was alcoholic
Hmm, you said that once before, so YOU can't follow a train of
thought. Does that make you conclude that you, yourself, has FAS?

is the reason why
everyone believes you either have FAS or some other brain disorder, possible
from excessive drug use.

Everyone? No, only stupid people who think that assumptions become
fact, just because they state them.

Did I say that slow enough for you?

I believe you typed, I didn't hear you say anything.


Yes, you ASSUMED. Period. Just as I thought.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:NTqXc.320398$%_6.142487@attbi_s01...
Basskisser,
I am not assuming your suffer from FAS because your mother was an
alcoholic,

Did I EVER say she drank when she was pregnant with me? See how stupid
your assumptions can be?

How would you know? The FAS would make you even less aware of it.

Jack

"Jack Goff" wrote in message om...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Comcast News" wrote in message
news:NTqXc.320398$%_6.142487@attbi_s01...
Basskisser,
I am not assuming your suffer from FAS because your mother was an
alcoholic,

Did I EVER say she drank when she was pregnant with me? See how stupid
your assumptions can be?

How would you know? The FAS would make you even less aware of it.

Jack

Only idiots make assumptions like that, with no facts to back it up.
But, then, everyone here KNOWS you are just that.