Vietnam veteran Larry J. O'Daniel has today challenged former fellow officer
and veteran, John Forbes Kerry to come clean with charges Kerry has made in
the past. O'Daniel, a decorated combat veteran and present Director of the
National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, served in the legendary
Phoenix Program and says that the issue is one that the Senator himself has
brought on.

"His attempt to denigrate the service of our incumbent President while this
legacy of his hangs on says much about the real issue of this election -
Leadership and Character. The Senator from Massachusetts lacks both."

"Senator John Forbes Kerry is attempting to be our generation's Vietnam War
hero, much the same way his avowed idol, John F. Kennedy was of that
generation. Kerry falls short in many ways. His attempt to ride into the
White House on the strength of medals for bravery is not enough. As a former
officer who served as a combat advisor and participant in a Special
Operations program, I know a little bit about integrity, courage, and
character. Kerry lacks what it takes to be Commander in Chief."

"If nominated, Kerry would be an extreme embarrassment to his party. On the
surface, he seems to be the exact type of rival needed to run against a
popular President with a military background, albeit not in combat. A
popular President who proved his courage jockeying supersonic aircraft. On
the surface, Kerry would seem to be able to cut into the military vote that
has become increasingly one party over the past 30 years."

"This senator, a JFK from Massachusetts, like the first JFK, is a Naval
Officer. However, he has a record which speaks volumes about his current
abilities and views. Kerry will both exploit his war record and run from it.
His checkerboard past explains his actions today. He has been critical of
the way the current war on terrorism has been waged. Inevitably, his
criticism is always preceded by media notices of Kerry, decorated Vietnam
war veteran. However, thirty three years ago, Kerry charged decorated war
veterans with unspeakable crimes. Those charges were false and the Senator
knew them to be false."

Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, Kerry asserted
he represented veterans, honorably discharged and very highly decorated, who
participated in war crimes. These crimes were not isolated incidents, he
charged, but crimes committed on a day - to - day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command. Crimes that this country
made them do. I remind the Senator that former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev
said, the GRU funded every major anti-Vietnam organization. The Soviet Union
spent twice as much money on this effort than they did in supplying weapons
to Vietnam. Kerry helped the GRU with their efforts. Their goal was to make
the military service in Vietnam a mark of shame. With his help, they
succeeded.

Kerry asserted these veterans personally raped women, cut off ears, cut off
heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on
the power. They cut off limbs; blew up bodies; randomly shot at civilians;
razed villages like Ghenghis Khan; shot livestock for fun; poisoned food;
and ravaged the Vietnamese countryside. From his personal experience, Kerry
asserted that the Vietnamese only wanted to work in rice paddies without our
helicopters strafing and napalming them and their villages. Our men died
while our allies refused to help and fight. Kerry said we rationalized
destroying villages in order to save them; accepted a My Lai; enforced free
fire zones by shooting anything that moves. Our GIs falsified body counts
while leaders glorified body counts. In a well orchestrated political move,
he asked, how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? The
well rehearsed veteran began his career that day.

A problem arises. Kerry's testimony was false. These charges were
investigated then and since. My challenge as a veteran of one of the main
programs Kerry and his colleagues used for the basis of these charges, the
Phoenix Program - Prove them or apologize.

Kerry's widely covered charges largely paralleled that of another highly
decorated veteran, LTC Anthony Herbert. Some of the unsubstantiated and
uncorroborated accusations of Kerry were almost identical to specific
charges leveled by Herbert. Both charged war crimes were ignored,
uninvestigated, part of the routine. We'll get to Herbert in just a second.

The prominence of Kerry and his cohorts, Jane Fonda and group, allowed
phonies and wannabes then and now to make false allegations slandering real
veterans of real programs, like mine of Phoenix. For example:

- Elton Mazione, claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)
credentials, Kerry's original organization, along with his friends, John
Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to kill children
and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. They were
neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.

- Kerry's VVAW leader friend from 1971, Al Hubbard, lied about being an
officer, Vietnam Veteran, and sustaining war injuries. Michael Harbert,
another VVAW crony of Kerry, lied about his Vietnam service.

- Yoshia K. Chee claimed Phoenix operatives routinely resorted to the most
hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters, and decapitated
prisoners. He was a phony.

- Mike Beamon, an alleged SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never in the
military.

The Senator's own VVAW and similar groups relied upon people like:

K. Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran and testifier of atrocities to Congress.
He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a woman starved to
death, a prisoner being killed by a six inch dowel pushed through his ear.
Osborn was not in Phoenix, refused to name names, and provided no
documentation.

Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought
conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer testified to
being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintain a kill quota of fifty
bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit the news. Neither served in
Vietnam, or in Phoenix. Reitemeyer later denied receiving any assassination
training. Both were students at Ft. Holabird when I underwent my
intelligence training there.

Many relied upon the specific charges of Herbert, which were publicly aired
in this same time frame as that of Senator Kerry, in order to prove their
charges. Herbert was highly decorated, apparently corroborating the
Senator's charges. Despite highly specific unit naming charges of some 21
war crimes, the facts of a subsequent investigation contradict both Herbert
and Kerry. Overall, this contemporaneous investigation lasted seven months.
Investigators located and interviewed 333 personnel located in 31 different
states, and six different foreign countries, including Vietnam. Out of the
21 incidents involved in the initial charges by Herbert, only seven charges
had sufficient substance to merit action or further investigation. Two of
the seven had already been acted upon with justice administered. One ended
with an article 15 punishment and one with a general court martial.

Two more of the seven involved Vietnamese versus Vietnamese offenses,
outside the scope of American jurisprudence and not necessarily proven. The
remaining three, at the time of the DA writing, November 5, 1971, were then
pending further action by officers exercising general court martial
jurisdiction. In other words, it was being further investigated to see if it
warranted charges being filed. This shows atrocities and allegations of
atrocities were neither condoned nor swept under the rug.

The Senator allegedly knew from personal experience of atrocities being
committed and condoned by officers at all levels of command. He was
obligated to report those atrocities. There is no known record of any such
report from the Senator. My Lai was not condoned, it was prosecuted. Fellow
anti-war activist Daniel Ellsberg, who likewise served in the war zone,
belied atrocity charges being more pronounced in Vietnam versus previous
wars. The Senator used trumped up allegations from phonies, wannabes,
stretchers of the truth to sully the valor, service, and integrity of his
fellow veterans to climb a political ladder of success. When sentiments
changed, he embraced those same veterans becoming an alleged champion of the
Vietnam era. He likewise used phonies to slander some 2000 specific veterans
of the Phoenix program like myself. He has never proven one charge.

When challenged last year to repudiate his previous testimony, after I faxed
to his office for review, a spokesman there abruptly terminated the call
saying if Senator Kerry testified to it, he stands by it. The Senator
recently condoned the alleged atrocities, war crimes, committed by a fellow
Democratic Senator and Vietnam Veteran, Robert Kerrey. He said the operation
should not be investigated because it allegedly happened all the time in
Vietnam. Further, on the Sam Donaldson show, Kerry short shirted the
program, Phoenix, under which the atrocity allegedly occurred, saying he
personally helped conduct similar anti-infrastructure operations, ferrying
SEALs. This, apparently is part of the source of the Senator's alleged first
hand knowledge he testified to before.

The Senator, as a former officer, knows his obligations were to avoid
participating in war crimes and reporting them when knowledge of them
occurred. Instead, the Senator broad brushed veterans of the war as crazed
killers forced to be that because of governmental policy. As a US Senator,
when faced head on with an allegation that a member of his party, his
Senatorial Fraternity, Robert Kerrey helped cut a civilian's throat and
possibly commanded an operation that killed over 20 civilians without
provocation, the Senator Kerry reverted to the 1971 allegations that
everyone did it. He ignored the formalized eyewitness allegation by a
veteran of that operation who belatedly lived up to a responsibility to
report a crime. Murder in a war zone has no time limits for investigation
nor prosecution.

The Senator, knows the charge is that Kerrey was on a Phoenix mission, like
those he self proclaimed participated in, because the Senator and Sam
Donaldson discussed that specific aspect on Donaldson's show. As I watched
the Senator's response from that show, he implied personal knowledge of
those Phoenix missions, although he clearly ducked any involvement with
Phoenix. No proud Vietnam warrior emerged in that interview.

My challenge is clear. Make the specific charges, times, dates, persons,
programs, units involved, of war crimes as outlined in your 1971 testimony.
Be specific on your own knowledge of these war crimes. Clear the air about
Phoenix, your participation, knowledge, even suspicions. Support the
investigation of the war crime allegations of your former colleague. Do not
allow his status of being a fellow privileged fraternity member from doing
your sworn duty, either now as a Senator, or from that era, where as an
officer and gentleman, you claimed personal knowledge of atrocities.

Now for a short time, I want to get personal on those 1971 charges. I served
in Vietnam from January 1969 to January 1970. I served in two different
Provinces, Go Cong and An Xuyen and three different districts, Hoa Tan, Thoi
Binh, and Song Ong Doc. I also served short stints in the Province
headquarters to acquaint myself with each new duty post. My perspective of
Phoenix is a little broader than most officers.

Concerning your allegations, they are as false as can be. In December 1968,
we were told of the two LTs who chose conscientious objector status
supposedly because of Phoenix. Each of us were given an opportunity to do
likewise if we so chose. None did as none of us had heard any order, any
teaching, any reason to suspect that Phoenix was an assassination program. I
received my orders to Vietnam at Holabird, having previously been chosen for
that duty at Fort Benning prior to finishing Infantry School.

I received orders for Phoenix in Vietnam. I was to go out in the field with
my counterparts as an infantry adviser and engage in frequent ground combat.
In addition, I was to be an intelligence analyst. Finally, many of us
tripled up as Deputy District Senior Advisers as troops were to come home
and advisory teams shrank in size.

We never received orders for assassination. To the contrary, we received
orders that Phoenix was to be like every other program and civilians
respected, the military justice system followed, and Geneva Conventions
adhered to strictly. We were to report any violations and if our
counterparts participated, we were to cease and attempt to cause our
counterparts to cease. We further received an invitation that if after being
chosen for Phoenix, we had reservations about our participation in this
police activity, we could opt out of the program with no recriminations.

I enforced free fire zones in both Provinces. Before any targets were
engaged by the pilots with whom I flew, they had to have my permission as I
represented the Vietnamese government in their eyes. That meant I identified
the targets as military, even if it was free fire. This I did on several
occasions. Sometimes, the other side cooperated and fired first, making my
job a lot easier.

I never heard of nor participated in any of the crimes you described. In IV
Corps, for the better part of the year I served and until the end of the
war, the adviser represented the bulk of Americans present. Contrary to your
statement, I spent time in lonely outposts and on ambushes with my
counterparts, sometimes being the lone American present. My life was
literally in their hands and they never let me down. I utilized Kit Carson
Scouts, or former VC as guides. Throughout the war, there is not one
recorded instance of these Vietnamese turning on us. A friend of mine, Kiet
Van Nguyen earned the Navy Cross, the second highest decoration (had he been
an American he would have received the Medal of Honor) for rescuing an
American pilot downed near the DMZ. His exploits were part of the movie Bat
21. None of your phonies got to know the Vietnamese personally like those of
us who advised them and relied upon them for our support.

Many of us in Phoenix taught English to young students, helped in Civic
Action projects, and mentored Vietnamese up and coming officers. We learned
about their culture from our counterparts who were ten and twenty years our
senior. I remember the beginnings of the charges against Phoenix as I began
my tour of duty. I remember your charges that Market Time did not work after
I returned. I knew you lied because Market Time forces were part of the
Americans I cooperated with. They opened up the interior water lanes so that
Vietnamese farmers could get their produce to market without having to be
extorted by Viet Cong terrorists. I patiently waited 30 plus years to issue
this challenge to you at the right time. This is that time.

Finally, concerning the service of our President. Since when is honorable
service in any branch under any condition subject to your approval? In my
family, there were five male cousins, all on active duty at the same time.
Three of us served in Vietnam at the same time. The other two were Vietnam
deferred because of the sole surviving son provisions. Other members of my
family served both in wartime and peacetime. We are all veterans. National
Guard service is a necessary service and someone has to fill the slot.
Reserve time is necessary and someone has to fill the slot. All is
honorable. Of the 8.7 million who served in the Vietnam era, are you trying
to say that 6.0 million had less than honorable service because they did not
serve in country? And in your Navy and Coast Guard, are you depreciating the
value of the 600,000 who never came ashore but who saved our skins time in
and time out with well placed naval gun fire for those of us on shore? Is
that what your concept of service is?

I flew on armed aerial recon with Navy Seawolves and in the back seat of an
OV-1 Birddog with a pilot who loved to show off his aerial acrobatics. I
skimmed at tree top level full speed with our Huey pilots taking me to some
meeting or back and forth between my posts. I know the thrill of flying at
subsonic speeds. I know how my stomach turned when the bird dog pilot banked
quickly to shoot rocket rounds in support of troops engaged in ground combat
below. So I can appreciate the guts it takes to be a jet jockey and I thank
God I was never one. Never would I question the President's courage even if
he only flew stateside. He had his job and I had mine.

Once again my challenge to you, if you are up to it either morally or
otherwise.

Either itemize those incidents you claim to have knowledge of or apologize
to the veterans of Vietnam whose reputations, valor, and integrity you
sullied then and now and renounce those charges you then and now refuse to
itemize. I make this challenge as a veteran of Vietnam, Phoenix, and as a
former fellow officer colleague. Duty - Honor - Country - These are our
obligations. You are at a fork in a path. Integrity or disgrace. Your
choice.

Larry J. O'Daniel


Former CPT MI awarded Combat Infantryman Badge, Vietnam Gallantry Cross with
Bronze Star, Vietnam Unit Awards for Gallantry and Civic Action. Current
Director National Vietnam and Gulf War Vetrans.




"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

Nice post, Gunner. Is it true that Hanoi John only spent 4 months in the RVN?
How did he pull that off? That was normally an 11-13 month tour, depending upon
the specific year. Those killed went home sooner, as did those with severe
wounds and injuries. How did the new JFK get to go home early?

Mike Eberlein (U.S Army, 1970-1972. No, I didn't go to Viet Nam. I served in
the US and Korea, making minimum wage with "safe" duty. Good of the Service and
all that sh*t, I guess)

Gunner wrote:

Vietnam veteran Larry J. O'Daniel has today challenged former fellow officer
and veteran, John Forbes Kerry to come clean with charges Kerry has made in
the past. O'Daniel, a decorated combat veteran and present Director of the
National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, served in the legendary
Phoenix Program and says that the issue is one that the Senator himself has
brought on.

"His attempt to denigrate the service of our incumbent President while this
legacy of his hangs on says much about the real issue of this election -
Leadership and Character. The Senator from Massachusetts lacks both."

"Senator John Forbes Kerry is attempting to be our generation's Vietnam War
hero, much the same way his avowed idol, John F. Kennedy was of that
generation. Kerry falls short in many ways. His attempt to ride into the
White House on the strength of medals for bravery is not enough. As a former
officer who served as a combat advisor and participant in a Special
Operations program, I know a little bit about integrity, courage, and
character. Kerry lacks what it takes to be Commander in Chief."

"If nominated, Kerry would be an extreme embarrassment to his party. On the
surface, he seems to be the exact type of rival needed to run against a
popular President with a military background, albeit not in combat. A
popular President who proved his courage jockeying supersonic aircraft. On
the surface, Kerry would seem to be able to cut into the military vote that
has become increasingly one party over the past 30 years."

"This senator, a JFK from Massachusetts, like the first JFK, is a Naval
Officer. However, he has a record which speaks volumes about his current
abilities and views. Kerry will both exploit his war record and run from it.
His checkerboard past explains his actions today. He has been critical of
the way the current war on terrorism has been waged. Inevitably, his
criticism is always preceded by media notices of Kerry, decorated Vietnam
war veteran. However, thirty three years ago, Kerry charged decorated war
veterans with unspeakable crimes. Those charges were false and the Senator
knew them to be false."

Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, Kerry asserted
he represented veterans, honorably discharged and very highly decorated, who
participated in war crimes. These crimes were not isolated incidents, he
charged, but crimes committed on a day - to - day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command. Crimes that this country
made them do. I remind the Senator that former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev
said, the GRU funded every major anti-Vietnam organization. The Soviet Union
spent twice as much money on this effort than they did in supplying weapons
to Vietnam. Kerry helped the GRU with their efforts. Their goal was to make
the military service in Vietnam a mark of shame. With his help, they
succeeded.

Kerry asserted these veterans personally raped women, cut off ears, cut off
heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on
the power. They cut off limbs; blew up bodies; randomly shot at civilians;
razed villages like Ghenghis Khan; shot livestock for fun; poisoned food;
and ravaged the Vietnamese countryside. From his personal experience, Kerry
asserted that the Vietnamese only wanted to work in rice paddies without our
helicopters strafing and napalming them and their villages. Our men died
while our allies refused to help and fight. Kerry said we rationalized
destroying villages in order to save them; accepted a My Lai; enforced free
fire zones by shooting anything that moves. Our GIs falsified body counts
while leaders glorified body counts. In a well orchestrated political move,
he asked, how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? The
well rehearsed veteran began his career that day.

A problem arises. Kerry's testimony was false. These charges were
investigated then and since. My challenge as a veteran of one of the main
programs Kerry and his colleagues used for the basis of these charges, the
Phoenix Program - Prove them or apologize.

Kerry's widely covered charges largely paralleled that of another highly
decorated veteran, LTC Anthony Herbert. Some of the unsubstantiated and
uncorroborated accusations of Kerry were almost identical to specific
charges leveled by Herbert. Both charged war crimes were ignored,
uninvestigated, part of the routine. We'll get to Herbert in just a second.

The prominence of Kerry and his cohorts, Jane Fonda and group, allowed
phonies and wannabes then and now to make false allegations slandering real
veterans of real programs, like mine of Phoenix. For example:

- Elton Mazione, claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)
credentials, Kerry's original organization, along with his friends, John
Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to kill children
and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. They were
neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.

- Kerry's VVAW leader friend from 1971, Al Hubbard, lied about being an
officer, Vietnam Veteran, and sustaining war injuries. Michael Harbert,
another VVAW crony of Kerry, lied about his Vietnam service.

- Yoshia K. Chee claimed Phoenix operatives routinely resorted to the most
hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters, and decapitated
prisoners. He was a phony.

- Mike Beamon, an alleged SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never in the
military.

The Senator's own VVAW and similar groups relied upon people like:

K. Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran and testifier of atrocities to Congress.
He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a woman starved to
death, a prisoner being killed by a six inch dowel pushed through his ear.
Osborn was not in Phoenix, refused to name names, and provided no
documentation.

Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought
conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer testified to
being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintain a kill quota of fifty
bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit the news. Neither served in
Vietnam, or in Phoenix. Reitemeyer later denied receiving any assassination
training. Both were students at Ft. Holabird when I underwent my
intelligence training there.

Many relied upon the specific charges of Herbert, which were publicly aired
in this same time frame as that of Senator Kerry, in order to prove their
charges. Herbert was highly decorated, apparently corroborating the
Senator's charges. Despite highly specific unit naming charges of some 21
war crimes, the facts of a subsequent investigation contradict both Herbert
and Kerry. Overall, this contemporaneous investigation lasted seven months.
Investigators located and interviewed 333 personnel located in 31 different
states, and six different foreign countries, including Vietnam. Out of the
21 incidents involved in the initial charges by Herbert, only seven charges
had sufficient substance to merit action or further investigation. Two of
the seven had already been acted upon with justice administered. One ended
with an article 15 punishment and one with a general court martial.

Two more of the seven involved Vietnamese versus Vietnamese offenses,
outside the scope of American jurisprudence and not necessarily proven. The
remaining three, at the time of the DA writing, November 5, 1971, were then
pending further action by officers exercising general court martial
jurisdiction. In other words, it was being further investigated to see if it
warranted charges being filed. This shows atrocities and allegations of
atrocities were neither condoned nor swept under the rug.

The Senator allegedly knew from personal experience of atrocities being
committed and condoned by officers at all levels of command. He was
obligated to report those atrocities. There is no known record of any such
report from the Senator. My Lai was not condoned, it was prosecuted. Fellow
anti-war activist Daniel Ellsberg, who likewise served in the war zone,
belied atrocity charges being more pronounced in Vietnam versus previous
wars. The Senator used trumped up allegations from phonies, wannabes,
stretchers of the truth to sully the valor, service, and integrity of his
fellow veterans to climb a political ladder of success. When sentiments
changed, he embraced those same veterans becoming an alleged champion of the
Vietnam era. He likewise used phonies to slander some 2000 specific veterans
of the Phoenix program like myself. He has never proven one charge.

When challenged last year to repudiate his previous testimony, after I faxed
to his office for review, a spokesman there abruptly terminated the call
saying if Senator Kerry testified to it, he stands by it. The Senator
recently condoned the alleged atrocities, war crimes, committed by a fellow
Democratic Senator and Vietnam Veteran, Robert Kerrey. He said the operation
should not be investigated because it allegedly happened all the time in
Vietnam. Further, on the Sam Donaldson show, Kerry short shirted the
program, Phoenix, under which the atrocity allegedly occurred, saying he
personally helped conduct similar anti-infrastructure operations, ferrying
SEALs. This, apparently is part of the source of the Senator's alleged first
hand knowledge he testified to before.

The Senator, as a former officer, knows his obligations were to avoid
participating in war crimes and reporting them when knowledge of them
occurred. Instead, the Senator broad brushed veterans of the war as crazed
killers forced to be that because of governmental policy. As a US Senator,
when faced head on with an allegation that a member of his party, his
Senatorial Fraternity, Robert Kerrey helped cut a civilian's throat and
possibly commanded an operation that killed over 20 civilians without
provocation, the Senator Kerry reverted to the 1971 allegations that
everyone did it. He ignored the formalized eyewitness allegation by a
veteran of that operation who belatedly lived up to a responsibility to
report a crime. Murder in a war zone has no time limits for investigation
nor prosecution.

The Senator, knows the charge is that Kerrey was on a Phoenix mission, like
those he self proclaimed participated in, because the Senator and Sam
Donaldson discussed that specific aspect on Donaldson's show. As I watched
the Senator's response from that show, he implied personal knowledge of
those Phoenix missions, although he clearly ducked any involvement with
Phoenix. No proud Vietnam warrior emerged in that interview.

My challenge is clear. Make the specific charges, times, dates, persons,
programs, units involved, of war crimes as outlined in your 1971 testimony.
Be specific on your own knowledge of these war crimes. Clear the air about
Phoenix, your participation, knowledge, even suspicions. Support the
investigation of the war crime allegations of your former colleague. Do not
allow his status of being a fellow privileged fraternity member from doing
your sworn duty, either now as a Senator, or from that era, where as an
officer and gentleman, you claimed personal knowledge of atrocities.

Now for a short time, I want to get personal on those 1971 charges. I served
in Vietnam from January 1969 to January 1970. I served in two different
Provinces, Go Cong and An Xuyen and three different districts, Hoa Tan, Thoi
Binh, and Song Ong Doc. I also served short stints in the Province
headquarters to acquaint myself with each new duty post. My perspective of
Phoenix is a little broader than most officers.

Concerning your allegations, they are as false as can be. In December 1968,
we were told of the two LTs who chose conscientious objector status
supposedly because of Phoenix. Each of us were given an opportunity to do
likewise if we so chose. None did as none of us had heard any order, any
teaching, any reason to suspect that Phoenix was an assassination program. I
received my orders to Vietnam at Holabird, having previously been chosen for
that duty at Fort Benning prior to finishing Infantry School.

I received orders for Phoenix in Vietnam. I was to go out in the field with
my counterparts as an infantry adviser and engage in frequent ground combat.
In addition, I was to be an intelligence analyst. Finally, many of us
tripled up as Deputy District Senior Advisers as troops were to come home
and advisory teams shrank in size.

We never received orders for assassination. To the contrary, we received
orders that Phoenix was to be like every other program and civilians
respected, the military justice system followed, and Geneva Conventions
adhered to strictly. We were to report any violations and if our
counterparts participated, we were to cease and attempt to cause our
counterparts to cease. We further received an invitation that if after being
chosen for Phoenix, we had reservations about our participation in this
police activity, we could opt out of the program with no recriminations.

I enforced free fire zones in both Provinces. Before any targets were
engaged by the pilots with whom I flew, they had to have my permission as I
represented the Vietnamese government in their eyes. That meant I identified
the targets as military, even if it was free fire. This I did on several
occasions. Sometimes, the other side cooperated and fired first, making my
job a lot easier.

I never heard of nor participated in any of the crimes you described. In IV
Corps, for the better part of the year I served and until the end of the
war, the adviser represented the bulk of Americans present. Contrary to your
statement, I spent time in lonely outposts and on ambushes with my
counterparts, sometimes being the lone American present. My life was
literally in their hands and they never let me down. I utilized Kit Carson
Scouts, or former VC as guides. Throughout the war, there is not one
recorded instance of these Vietnamese turning on us. A friend of mine, Kiet
Van Nguyen earned the Navy Cross, the second highest decoration (had he been
an American he would have received the Medal of Honor) for rescuing an
American pilot downed near the DMZ. His exploits were part of the movie Bat
21. None of your phonies got to know the Vietnamese personally like those of
us who advised them and relied upon them for our support.

Many of us in Phoenix taught English to young students, helped in Civic
Action projects, and mentored Vietnamese up and coming officers. We learned
about their culture from our counterparts who were ten and twenty years our
senior. I remember the beginnings of the charges against Phoenix as I began
my tour of duty. I remember your charges that Market Time did not work after
I returned. I knew you lied because Market Time forces were part of the
Americans I cooperated with. They opened up the interior water lanes so that
Vietnamese farmers could get their produce to market without having to be
extorted by Viet Cong terrorists. I patiently waited 30 plus years to issue
this challenge to you at the right time. This is that time.

Finally, concerning the service of our President. Since when is honorable
service in any branch under any condition subject to your approval? In my
family, there were five male cousins, all on active duty at the same time.
Three of us served in Vietnam at the same time. The other two were Vietnam
deferred because of the sole surviving son provisions. Other members of my
family served both in wartime and peacetime. We are all veterans. National
Guard service is a necessary service and someone has to fill the slot.
Reserve time is necessary and someone has to fill the slot. All is
honorable. Of the 8.7 million who served in the Vietnam era, are you trying
to say that 6.0 million had less than honorable service because they did not
serve in country? And in your Navy and Coast Guard, are you depreciating the
value of the 600,000 who never came ashore but who saved our skins time in
and time out with well placed naval gun fire for those of us on shore? Is
that what your concept of service is?

I flew on armed aerial recon with Navy Seawolves and in the back seat of an
OV-1 Birddog with a pilot who loved to show off his aerial acrobatics. I
skimmed at tree top level full speed with our Huey pilots taking me to some
meeting or back and forth between my posts. I know the thrill of flying at
subsonic speeds. I know how my stomach turned when the bird dog pilot banked
quickly to shoot rocket rounds in support of troops engaged in ground combat
below. So I can appreciate the guts it takes to be a jet jockey and I thank
God I was never one. Never would I question the President's courage even if
he only flew stateside. He had his job and I had mine.

Once again my challenge to you, if you are up to it either morally or
otherwise.

Either itemize those incidents you claim to have knowledge of or apologize
to the veterans of Vietnam whose reputations, valor, and integrity you
sullied then and now and renounce those charges you then and now refuse to
itemize. I make this challenge as a veteran of Vietnam, Phoenix, and as a
former fellow officer colleague. Duty - Honor - Country - These are our
obligations. You are at a fork in a path. Integrity or disgrace. Your
choice.

Larry J. O'Daniel


Former CPT MI awarded Combat Infantryman Badge, Vietnam Gallantry Cross with
Bronze Star, Vietnam Unit Awards for Gallantry and Civic Action. Current
Director National Vietnam and Gulf War Vetrans.




"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

Gunner wrote:
Vietnam veteran Larry J. O'Daniel has today challenged former fellow
officer and veteran, John Forbes Kerry to come clean with charges
Kerry has made in the past. O'Daniel, a decorated combat veteran and
present Director of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans
Coalition, served in the legendary Phoenix Program and says that the
issue is one that the Senator himself has brought on.

"His attempt to denigrate the service of our incumbent President
while this legacy of his hangs on says much about the real issue of
this election - Leadership and Character. The Senator from
Massachusetts lacks both."

"Senator John Forbes Kerry is attempting to be our generation's
Vietnam War hero, much the same way his avowed idol, John F. Kennedy
was of that generation. Kerry falls short in many ways. His attempt
to ride into the White House on the strength of medals for bravery
is not enough. As a former officer who served as a combat advisor
and participant in a Special Operations program, I know a little bit
about integrity, courage, and character. Kerry lacks what it takes
to be Commander in Chief."

"If nominated, Kerry would be an extreme embarrassment to his party.
On the surface, he seems to be the exact type of rival needed to run
against a popular President with a military background, albeit not
in combat. A popular President who proved his courage jockeying
supersonic aircraft. On the surface, Kerry would seem to be able to
cut into the military vote that has become increasingly one party
over the past 30 years."

"This senator, a JFK from Massachusetts, like the first JFK, is a
Naval Officer. However, he has a record which speaks volumes about
his current abilities and views. Kerry will both exploit his war
record and run from it. His checkerboard past explains his actions
today. He has been critical of the way the current war on terrorism
has been waged. Inevitably, his criticism is always preceded by
media notices of Kerry, decorated Vietnam war veteran. However,
thirty three years ago, Kerry charged decorated war veterans with
unspeakable crimes. Those charges were false and the Senator knew
them to be false."

Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, Kerry
asserted he represented veterans, honorably discharged and very
highly decorated, who participated in war crimes. These crimes were
not isolated incidents, he charged, but crimes committed on a day -
to - day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of
command. Crimes that this country made them do. I remind the Senator
that former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev said, the GRU funded every
major anti-Vietnam organization. The Soviet Union spent twice as
much money on this effort than they did in supplying weapons to
Vietnam. Kerry helped the GRU with their efforts. Their goal was to
make the military service in Vietnam a mark of shame. With his help,
they succeeded.

Kerry asserted these veterans personally raped women, cut off ears,
cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned on the power. They cut off limbs; blew up
bodies; randomly shot at civilians; razed villages like Ghenghis
Khan; shot livestock for fun; poisoned food; and ravaged the
Vietnamese countryside. From his personal experience, Kerry asserted
that the Vietnamese only wanted to work in rice paddies without our
helicopters strafing and napalming them and their villages. Our men
died while our allies refused to help and fight. Kerry said we
rationalized destroying villages in order to save them; accepted a
My Lai; enforced free fire zones by shooting anything that moves.
Our GIs falsified body counts while leaders glorified body counts.
In a well orchestrated political move, he asked, how do you ask a
man to be the last man to die for a mistake? The well rehearsed
veteran began his career that day.

A problem arises. Kerry's testimony was false. These charges were
investigated then and since. My challenge as a veteran of one of the
main programs Kerry and his colleagues used for the basis of these
charges, the Phoenix Program - Prove them or apologize.

Kerry's widely covered charges largely paralleled that of another
highly decorated veteran, LTC Anthony Herbert. Some of the
unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations of Kerry were almost
identical to specific charges leveled by Herbert. Both charged war
crimes were ignored, uninvestigated, part of the routine. We'll get
to Herbert in just a second.

The prominence of Kerry and his cohorts, Jane Fonda and group,
allowed phonies and wannabes then and now to make false allegations
slandering real veterans of real programs, like mine of Phoenix. For
example:

- Elton Mazione, claiming Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)
credentials, Kerry's original organization, along with his friends,
John Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser. They claimed to
kill children and remove body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix
program. They were neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.

- Kerry's VVAW leader friend from 1971, Al Hubbard, lied about being
an officer, Vietnam Veteran, and sustaining war injuries. Michael
Harbert, another VVAW crony of Kerry, lied about his Vietnam service.

- Yoshia K. Chee claimed Phoenix operatives routinely resorted to
the most hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters,
and decapitated prisoners. He was a phony.

- Mike Beamon, an alleged SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never in the
military.

The Senator's own VVAW and similar groups relied upon people like:

K. Barton Osborn, a Vietnam veteran and testifier of atrocities to
Congress. He told of prisoners being thrown out of helicopters, a
woman starved to death, a prisoner being killed by a six inch dowel
pushed through his ear. Osborn was not in Phoenix, refused to name
names, and provided no documentation.

Lieutenants Francis Reitemeyer and Michael J. Cohn. Both sought
conscientious objector status because of Phoenix. Reitemeyer
testified to being assigned to Phoenix as an adviser and maintain a
kill quota of fifty bodies a month. They became famous as My Lai hit
the news. Neither served in Vietnam, or in Phoenix. Reitemeyer later
denied receiving any assassination training. Both were students at
Ft. Holabird when I underwent my intelligence training there.

Many relied upon the specific charges of Herbert, which were
publicly aired in this same time frame as that of Senator Kerry, in
order to prove their charges. Herbert was highly decorated,
apparently corroborating the Senator's charges. Despite highly
specific unit naming charges of some 21 war crimes, the facts of a
subsequent investigation contradict both Herbert and Kerry. Overall,
this contemporaneous investigation lasted seven months.
Investigators located and interviewed 333 personnel located in 31
different states, and six different foreign countries, including
Vietnam. Out of the 21 incidents involved in the initial charges by
Herbert, only seven charges had sufficient substance to merit action
or further investigation. Two of the seven had already been acted
upon with justice administered. One ended with an article 15
punishment and one with a general court martial.

Two more of the seven involved Vietnamese versus Vietnamese offenses,
outside the scope of American jurisprudence and not necessarily
proven. The remaining three, at the time of the DA writing, November
5, 1971, were then pending further action by officers exercising
general court martial jurisdiction. In other words, it was being
further investigated to see if it warranted charges being filed.
This shows atrocities and allegations of atrocities were neither
condoned nor swept under the rug.

The Senator allegedly knew from personal experience of atrocities
being committed and condoned by officers at all levels of command.
He was obligated to report those atrocities. There is no known
record of any such report from the Senator. My Lai was not condoned,
it was prosecuted. Fellow anti-war activist Daniel Ellsberg, who
likewise served in the war zone, belied atrocity charges being more
pronounced in Vietnam versus previous wars. The Senator used trumped
up allegations from phonies, wannabes, stretchers of the truth to
sully the valor, service, and integrity of his fellow veterans to
climb a political ladder of success. When sentiments changed, he
embraced those same veterans becoming an alleged champion of the
Vietnam era. He likewise used phonies to slander some 2000 specific
veterans of the Phoenix program like myself. He has never proven one
charge.

When challenged last year to repudiate his previous testimony, after
I faxed to his office for review, a spokesman there abruptly
terminated the call saying if Senator Kerry testified to it, he
stands by it. The Senator recently condoned the alleged atrocities,
war crimes, committed by a fellow Democratic Senator and Vietnam
Veteran, Robert Kerrey. He said the operation should not be
investigated because it allegedly happened all the time in Vietnam.
Further, on the Sam Donaldson show, Kerry short shirted the program,
Phoenix, under which the atrocity allegedly occurred, saying he
personally helped conduct similar anti-infrastructure operations,
ferrying SEALs. This, apparently is part of the source of the
Senator's alleged first hand knowledge he testified to before.

The Senator, as a former officer, knows his obligations were to avoid
participating in war crimes and reporting them when knowledge of them
occurred. Instead, the Senator broad brushed veterans of the war as
crazed killers forced to be that because of governmental policy. As
a US Senator, when faced head on with an allegation that a member of
his party, his Senatorial Fraternity, Robert Kerrey helped cut a
civilian's throat and possibly commanded an operation that killed
over 20 civilians without provocation, the Senator Kerry reverted to
the 1971 allegations that everyone did it. He ignored the formalized
eyewitness allegation by a veteran of that operation who belatedly
lived up to a responsibility to report a crime. Murder in a war zone
has no time limits for investigation nor prosecution.

The Senator, knows the charge is that Kerrey was on a Phoenix
mission, like those he self proclaimed participated in, because the
Senator and Sam Donaldson discussed that specific aspect on
Donaldson's show. As I watched the Senator's response from that
show, he implied personal knowledge of those Phoenix missions,
although he clearly ducked any involvement with Phoenix. No proud
Vietnam warrior emerged in that interview.

My challenge is clear. Make the specific charges, times, dates,
persons, programs, units involved, of war crimes as outlined in your
1971 testimony. Be specific on your own knowledge of these war
crimes. Clear the air about Phoenix, your participation, knowledge,
even suspicions. Support the investigation of the war crime
allegations of your former colleague. Do not allow his status of
being a fellow privileged fraternity member from doing your sworn
duty, either now as a Senator, or from that era, where as an officer
and gentleman, you claimed personal knowledge of atrocities.

Now for a short time, I want to get personal on those 1971 charges.
I served in Vietnam from January 1969 to January 1970. I served in
two different Provinces, Go Cong and An Xuyen and three different
districts, Hoa Tan, Thoi Binh, and Song Ong Doc. I also served short
stints in the Province headquarters to acquaint myself with each new
duty post. My perspective of Phoenix is a little broader than most
officers.

Concerning your allegations, they are as false as can be. In
December 1968, we were told of the two LTs who chose conscientious
objector status supposedly because of Phoenix. Each of us were given
an opportunity to do likewise if we so chose. None did as none of us
had heard any order, any teaching, any reason to suspect that
Phoenix was an assassination program. I received my orders to
Vietnam at Holabird, having previously been chosen for that duty at
Fort Benning prior to finishing Infantry School.

I received orders for Phoenix in Vietnam. I was to go out in the
field with my counterparts as an infantry adviser and engage in
frequent ground combat. In addition, I was to be an intelligence
analyst. Finally, many of us tripled up as Deputy District Senior
Advisers as troops were to come home and advisory teams shrank in
size.

We never received orders for assassination. To the contrary, we
received orders that Phoenix was to be like every other program and
civilians respected, the military justice system followed, and
Geneva Conventions adhered to strictly. We were to report any
violations and if our counterparts participated, we were to cease
and attempt to cause our counterparts to cease. We further received
an invitation that if after being chosen for Phoenix, we had
reservations about our participation in this police activity, we
could opt out of the program with no recriminations.

I enforced free fire zones in both Provinces. Before any targets were
engaged by the pilots with whom I flew, they had to have my
permission as I represented the Vietnamese government in their eyes.
That meant I identified the targets as military, even if it was free
fire. This I did on several occasions. Sometimes, the other side
cooperated and fired first, making my job a lot easier.

I never heard of nor participated in any of the crimes you
described. In IV Corps, for the better part of the year I served and
until the end of the war, the adviser represented the bulk of
Americans present. Contrary to your statement, I spent time in
lonely outposts and on ambushes with my counterparts, sometimes
being the lone American present. My life was literally in their
hands and they never let me down. I utilized Kit Carson Scouts, or
former VC as guides. Throughout the war, there is not one recorded
instance of these Vietnamese turning on us. A friend of mine, Kiet
Van Nguyen earned the Navy Cross, the second highest decoration (had
he been an American he would have received the Medal of Honor) for
rescuing an American pilot downed near the DMZ. His exploits were
part of the movie Bat
21. None of your phonies got to know the Vietnamese personally like
those of us who advised them and relied upon them for our support.

Many of us in Phoenix taught English to young students, helped in
Civic Action projects, and mentored Vietnamese up and coming
officers. We learned about their culture from our counterparts who
were ten and twenty years our senior. I remember the beginnings of
the charges against Phoenix as I began my tour of duty. I remember
your charges that Market Time did not work after I returned. I knew
you lied because Market Time forces were part of the Americans I
cooperated with. They opened up the interior water lanes so that
Vietnamese farmers could get their produce to market without having
to be extorted by Viet Cong terrorists. I patiently waited 30 plus
years to issue this challenge to you at the right time. This is that
time.

Finally, concerning the service of our President. Since when is
honorable service in any branch under any condition subject to your
approval? In my family, there were five male cousins, all on active
duty at the same time. Three of us served in Vietnam at the same
time. The other two were Vietnam deferred because of the sole
surviving son provisions. Other members of my family served both in
wartime and peacetime. We are all veterans. National Guard service
is a necessary service and someone has to fill the slot. Reserve
time is necessary and someone has to fill the slot. All is
honorable. Of the 8.7 million who served in the Vietnam era, are you
trying to say that 6.0 million had less than honorable service
because they did not serve in country? And in your Navy and Coast
Guard, are you depreciating the value of the 600,000 who never came
ashore but who saved our skins time in and time out with well placed
naval gun fire for those of us on shore? Is that what your concept
of service is?

I flew on armed aerial recon with Navy Seawolves and in the back
seat of an OV-1 Birddog with a pilot who loved to show off his
aerial acrobatics. I skimmed at tree top level full speed with our
Huey pilots taking me to some meeting or back and forth between my
posts. I know the thrill of flying at subsonic speeds. I know how my
stomach turned when the bird dog pilot banked quickly to shoot
rocket rounds in support of troops engaged in ground combat below.
So I can appreciate the guts it takes to be a jet jockey and I thank
God I was never one. Never would I question the President's courage
even if he only flew stateside. He had his job and I had mine.

Once again my challenge to you, if you are up to it either morally or
otherwise.

Either itemize those incidents you claim to have knowledge of or
apologize to the veterans of Vietnam whose reputations, valor, and
integrity you sullied then and now and renounce those charges you
then and now refuse to itemize. I make this challenge as a veteran
of Vietnam, Phoenix, and as a former fellow officer colleague. Duty
- Honor - Country - These are our obligations. You are at a fork in
a path. Integrity or disgrace. Your choice.

Larry J. O'Daniel


Former CPT MI awarded Combat Infantryman Badge, Vietnam Gallantry
Cross with Bronze Star, Vietnam Unit Awards for Gallantry and Civic
Action. Current Director National Vietnam and Gulf War Vetrans.


I think Kerry is going to have to be held accountable for his testimony.
It's unfortunate that it didn't happen before he locked up the nomination.
It's amazing that these two candidates are the best our system has to offer.

Gunner, you have crapped on my computer screen for the last time.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 05:32:13 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:

Gunner, you have crapped on my computer screen for the last time.

I take it your reading comprehension of subject titles is limited?

Or was there an evil Conservative standing over you with a gun in
your ear forcing you to read the posting?

Hummmm???

Or was it simply that your Guy got another black mark?

Given the amount of Bush bashing, anti-conservative posts here on the
group now and again..Id have to say your outrage is based on your
bias. Shrug..feel free to hit that kill file sequence on your
keyboard.

Of course doing so is equivelant to poking your fingers in your ears,
and saying " I can't hear you lalalalala"

A course of action most children outgrow by the early teens. Shrug.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

I have never understood why, in the United States of America, a thing such
as a "killfile" is even necessary.

We are guaranteed Freedom of Choice, which I interpret to mean that I can
choose to read or, more importantly, NOT read anything.

I do not need an artificial intelligence "killfile" to help me make my own
personal decisions. I am capable of doing that myself. I can decide on a
case-to-case basis as to what I choose to read or NOT read.

If I didn't want to read Gunner - and, there are times that I really don't
want to read Gunner - I can simply click past the posts with his name. I
don't need a computer's "killfile" to accomplish that.

If I "killfile" someone, I am no longer practicing my own Constitutional
guarantee of Freedom of Choice, and I have transferred that right to a
machine.

I suspect that people who actively use "killfiles" are actually too weak to
control their own urges, and must rely on the computer software to make
their choices for them, else they backslide and actually read postings from
the person with whom they are currently in disagreement.


AND........

.....even if I *were* to use a "killfile", why would I need/want to
broadcast that particular information to everyone?

I would simply "killfile" that person, and no longer worry about having to
read their stuff.

Why would I need to let everybody know my decision?

Does the "killfile" NOT work if it is not widely broadcast???

Is there some sort of superstition attached????

Do people actually hope that by threatening to NOT read somebody's stuff
that those people will, somehow, effect a change in that person's point(s)
of view?

You might as well threaten to go on a hunger strike.....

Your threat to make a conscious decision to starve yourself has about as
much impact on me as your choice to "killfile" someone.

ZERO!!!

I never understood the rationale behind a hunger strike - or announced
"killfilings.".

If I understand a hunger strike, *you* are going to teach *me* a lesson by
starving *yourself* into serious illness and/or death????

Same with the killfile.

Apparently I am going to be, somehow, spiritually and/or morally poorer
because *you* have decided to NOT read *my* stuff, and you have broadcast
your decision to the rest of the world - which you hope will fall into
lockstep behind you in your crusade.

As a journalist and columnist for over 20 years, I learned that no matter
what you write, someone will disagree....sometimes vehemently.

They can disagree by refusing to read my stuff, or they can disagree by
sending a letter to my editor but, I never lost a job because someone
disagreed with what I wrote......which should give everybody a pretty solid
clue as to the impact of announcing that they are "killfiling" someone
else.

It doesn't even come close to "shunning" as practiced by some religious
faiths.

That's life!

So....go grab yourself a Triple Cheese Whopper with a "Biggie" fries, and
forget about these hunger strike/"killfiling" tactics.

Other than bringing a slight smile to my face, you are really wasting your
time.

Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Racing Chassis Analysis Services

P.S. If you decide to "killfile" me, be my guest, but I don't really need
to know. Let's keep that *your* little secret. 'kay?

My main reason for killing threads/topics is because the
threads/topics I killfile are usually HUGE and I'd have to scroll past
all of it, which is mildly annoying.

I also killfile people who I think regularly contribute to such
threads but don't contribute much otherwise.

Also, I find that if I -don't- do such killfiling, I'll get involved
and end up being like the very people I killfile... (see item 2
above).

Mike


On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 08:13:37 -0600, "Bob Paulin"
wrote:


snip

Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Racing Chassis Analysis Services

P.S. If you decide to "killfile" me, be my guest, but I don't really need
to know. Let's keep that *your* little secret. 'kay?

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

Bob Paulin wrote:

I have never understood why, in the United States of America, a thing such
as a "killfile" is even necessary.

SNIP

P.S. If you decide to "killfile" me, be my guest, but I don't really need
to know. Let's keep that *your* little secret. 'kay?

Brilliant. This posting is a keeper. Thanks.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

"Bob Paulin" wrote in message
news:01c402bb$683bb5a0$ea9bc3d8@race...
I have never understood why, in the United States of America, a thing such
as a "killfile" is even necessary.

Plonk!....

Just kidding, I loved your post. You summed up the whole "killfile"
motivation quite nicely. I'll be leaving you out of my killfile for now...
but you just watch yourself or you could be barred from my newsreader.
That'll teach you.

In article 01c402bb$683bb5a0$ea9bc3d8@race, Bob Paulin
wrote:

I have never understood why, in the United States of America, a thing such
as a "killfile" is even necessary.

snip
Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Racing Chassis Analysis Services

P.S. If you decide to "killfile" me, be my guest, but I don't really need
to know. Let's keep that *your* little secret. 'kay?



Actually Bob you missed my point entirely.
I come to this newsgroup to read and respond to questions about
METALWORKING.
Not politics or pop-culture.
if I don't use filters to reduce the shear quantity of posts I see,
this group becomes unmanageable.

Killfile filters are just one.
I also filter for certain words used by spammers, political words, and
just threads I have no interest in, ever.
That is my right.

I made a point of telling people that I was killfiling Gunner, because
I feel he is abusing the inherent openness of this forum to constantly
spout of on political topics.
My statement was also within my rights, check under freedom of speech.

I wouldn't even mind so much if his posts made sense, but he routinely
picks the most idiotic sources for his posts, and rarely does any
research to verify if it has any merit in the first place.

Sorry guys but I grew up at Purdue University, The concept of verifying
your sources researching your ideas got embedded in my head at a young
age.
I may be elitist but I don't feel everybody is entitled to their
opinion.
I believe everybody is entitled to their INFORMED opinion.
If you have something intelligent to say I may just listen.
If not, then GO AWAY.

He feels that it is his right to post whatever he likes.
Well actually no.
This group was established to discuss METALWORKING.
By not abiding by that he is violating a "gentlemen's agreement" to act
civilized and play by the rules.
Usenet has no police force.
The only control placed on us is by ourselves.
If you enjoy anarchy then have fun and enjoy.
I like a little order in my otherwise chaotic life.

I like the idea that there is at least one place where people can rise
to a more civilized level of behavior.

That's all I have to say.

So....go grab yourself a Triple Cheese Whopper with a "Biggie" fries, and
forget about these hunger strike/"killfiling" tactics.

Or get in bed in the foetal position and turn the blanket to high ). Great
post, Bob. People who killfile (and announce it) are childish idiots, IMO.
Greg Sefton

Ernie Leimkuhler wrote in article
...
In article 01c402bb$683bb5a0$ea9bc3d8@race, Bob Paulin
wrote:

I have never understood why, in the United States of America, a thing
such
as a "killfile" is even necessary.

snip
Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Racing Chassis Analysis Services

P.S. If you decide to "killfile" me, be my guest, but I don't really
need
to know. Let's keep that *your* little secret. 'kay?



Actually Bob you missed my point entirely.
I come to this newsgroup to read and respond to questions about
METALWORKING.
Not politics or pop-culture.
if I don't use filters to reduce the shear quantity of posts I see,
this group becomes unmanageable.

Killfile filters are just one.
I also filter for certain words used by spammers, political words, and
just threads I have no interest in, ever.
That is my right.


Nobody ever questioned your rights, but I think *you* are missing *my*
point entirely....

I made a point of telling people that I was killfiling Gunner, because
I feel he is abusing the inherent openness of this forum to constantly
spout of on political topics.
My statement was also within my rights, check under freedom of speech.


Do you really believe ANYBODY cares if or why your are killfiling Gunner?

For that matter, why should anybody care if and/or why you DO or DO NOT
killfile anybody?

THAT is my point.

If you don't want to see his - or anybody else's - stuff, by all means
exercise whatever freedoms you choose and ignore and/or killfile him.....

.......but what is the point of telling the whole group that you have
killfiled someone - other than to hope that you can convince others of
Gunner's alleged sins/faux-pas who will then jump on your political
bandwagon, and join in the "shunning"?

Trying to get others to boycott/shun someone because of their political
beliefs takes on an almost-terroristic quality.

Al-Quaida is trying - in its own somewhat more forceful expressions of
belief - to get others to keep the United States and its Allies from
participating in that big group known as the World.

Not liking something and making changes so you don't have to deal with it
is something that is certainly well within your rights, but it becomes
political when you decide to try and convince other people that they should
adopt your stance on the person/issue and join your boycott.

Your statement is well within your rights, but it *is* as political as any
other attempt to create a boycott.

Announcing that you are killfiling someone, and the reasons why you are, is
as political as some of the things that Gunner posts, and for which he is
taking some heat.

At least that is *my* opinion.


I wouldn't even mind so much if his posts made sense, but he routinely
picks the most idiotic sources for his posts, and rarely does any
research to verify if it has any merit in the first place.


That is, of course, *your* opinion, to which, I again agree, you are
entitled....but you apparently, hope to convince others to join you in
support of your choice to boycott/shun Gunner.

Some of us - I may or may not be included in this group - enjoy a lot of
Gunner's stuff.

Although I see a lot people exercising their right to disagree with Gunner,
I really don't see that many honest-to-God complaints - other than the
occasional announced killfiling.

So, he is either being read and enjoyed or debated - maybe even secretly
laughed at for his political stance....

.....or he is being ignored/killfiled by a number of people who do not feel
such a compelling need to announce their actions and reasons.


Sorry guys but I grew up at Purdue University, The concept of verifying
your sources researching your ideas got embedded in my head at a young
age.
I may be elitist but I don't feel everybody is entitled to their
opinion.
I believe everybody is entitled to their INFORMED opinion.
If you have something intelligent to say I may just listen.
If not, then GO AWAY.

He feels that it is his right to post whatever he likes.
Well actually no.

Aw, Geez!!!

What happened to that "Freedom of Speech" flag that you were so vigorously
waving just above? ( "My statement was also within my rights, check under
freedom of speech." ) It seems to have tattered rather quickly.

Isn't Gunner - or anybody else who posts here - entitled to that same
right?

Didn't *you* just post what *you* wanted to post?

Is Freedom of Speech only "free" when certain other parties or the majority
agree?

Or does it need to be "informed" in order to qualify under "free speech"?

And who decides if it is "informed"....you? I certainly do not want that
job.

Does a person *not* have the right to say "...black is white" no matter how
dumb and foolish it may sound to other, "more informed" people?

Can someone exercise this freedom to write something that is totally
opposed to your belief system - or does the Constitution draw the line at
things with which Ernie doesn't agree?

Who was the politician in American history who stated that he was opposed
to what was being said, but that he would defend to his death the person's
right to say it?


This group was established to discuss METALWORKING......


......Which, ironically, this particular post, in which you are obviously
participating, is *not* discussing.


By not abiding by that he is violating a "gentlemen's agreement" to act
civilized and play by the rules.

How come I was never informed about any tacit agreement to which I would be
subjecting myself by the mere act of participating before I was allowed to
post here?

Doesn't THAT violate some sort of "right to know" to which I am entitled?

Usenet has no police force.

No, it doesn't!.....unless, of course, you count the self-appointed ones...

The only control placed on us is by ourselves.
If you enjoy anarchy then have fun and enjoy.
I like a little order in my otherwise chaotic life.

I like the idea that there is at least one place where people can rise
to a more civilized level of behavior.


I belong to several moderated forums where there is high degree of civility
and politeness, but I haven't found anything remotely similar in the Wild
West, in-your-face atmosphere of the usenet.

I have never resorted to name-calling or profane language on the usenet -
or in my daily life, for that matter.

I believe I can get my point across in a civil manner, but that sometimes
brings out an inordinate amount of incivility from those who cannot
participate in a debate of ideas. (Can anybody remember the guy whose name
started with "C" and was followed by a three-letter word for donkey which
rhymed with "pass"?)

Boycott, shun, ignore and/or killfile Gunner if you so wish, but I really
don't need to know if you do, and I really don't care why......

You make your own decision based on your own reasons.

I'll make up my own mind on Gunner - and others - based on my own reasons,
with which, I promise, you will not be burdened.


Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Race Car Chassis Setup and Dial-in Services

Ernie Leimkuhler wrote:

In article 01c402bb$683bb5a0$ea9bc3d8@race, Bob Paulin
wrote:

I have never understood why, in the United States of America, a thing such
as a "killfile" is even necessary.

snip
Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Racing Chassis Analysis Services

P.S. If you decide to "killfile" me, be my guest, but I don't really need
to know. Let's keep that *your* little secret. 'kay?


Actually Bob you missed my point entirely.

I think you missed his point entirely. His post was a brilliant observation on
one of the habits on Usenet. And funny to boot.

And I fully agree with you about Gunner and his garbage. But once you realize
that he is a rather sorry loser of biblical proportions, you can laugh at his
silly diatribes (which are not even his since all he does is cut and paste), and
his even sillier sig lines.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Hello,
I read your post and it is evident that you feel strongly on the
subject of this "Killfile". This is the first time I have heard of a
Killfile, so you are educating me about them. So I got to thinking,
Is not a Killfile program simmilar to programming only your favorite
stations on your TV remote? Example, I really don't care about
sports. They just don't interest me. I like cars and mechanical
things, but I don't even follow nascar. So on my TV remote, I would
probably exclude ESPN, Sports Network,, etc. I really don't care
about the women's network or the decorating channel either. So is this
Killfiling? By using a killfile program, as I understand, you select
not to view certin internet content. Sounds like a filter that would
save time by not viewing the data you don't want. As like faster
channel surfing. Might be a good thing!? --Doozer

(clip) Trying to get others to boycott/shun someone because of their
political beliefs takes on an almost-terroristic quality (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, THAT'S the overstatement of the century.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 08:13:37 -0600, "Bob Paulin"
wrote:



I have never understood why, in the United States of America, a thing such
as a "killfile" is even necessary.

We are guaranteed Freedom of Choice, which I interpret to mean that I can
choose to read or, more importantly, NOT read anything.

I do not need an artificial intelligence "killfile" to help me make my own
personal decisions. I am capable of doing that myself. I can decide on a
case-to-case basis as to what I choose to read or NOT read.

If I didn't want to read Gunner - and, there are times that I really don't
want to read Gunner - I can simply click past the posts with his name. I
don't need a computer's "killfile" to accomplish that.

If I "killfile" someone, I am no longer practicing my own Constitutional
guarantee of Freedom of Choice, and I have transferred that right to a
machine.

I suspect that people who actively use "killfiles" are actually too weak to
control their own urges, and must rely on the computer software to make
their choices for them, else they backslide and actually read postings from
the person with whom they are currently in disagreement.

As for me you are partially correct. My reason for killfiling people
is usually not that I don't want to read their posts but that I don't
want to reply to their posts. I admit that I have no self-control.
(



AND........

....even if I *were* to use a "killfile", why would I need/want to
broadcast that particular information to everyone?

I don't. I'm a silent killfiler as I don't believe in the grand
announcement. I did however start a thread yesterday to a certain
person and explained that I have that person killfiled. I also
admitted that this was rather a CS move on my part. Shrug.
Your post is really good. Enjoyable reading. I'm not going to tell
you if I'm going to killfile you, though. G
Sue

rest of good post snipped

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:28:30 -0600, "Bob Paulin"
wrote:

Ernie Leimkuhler wrote in article
...
In article 01c402bb$683bb5a0$ea9bc3d8@race, Bob Paulin
wrote:

I have never understood why, in the United States of America, a thing
such
as a "killfile" is even necessary.

snip
Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Racing Chassis Analysis Services

P.S. If you decide to "killfile" me, be my guest, but I don't really
need
to know. Let's keep that *your* little secret. 'kay?



Actually Bob you missed my point entirely.
I come to this newsgroup to read and respond to questions about
METALWORKING.
Not politics or pop-culture.
if I don't use filters to reduce the shear quantity of posts I see,
this group becomes unmanageable.

Killfile filters are just one.
I also filter for certain words used by spammers, political words, and
just threads I have no interest in, ever.
That is my right.


Nobody ever questioned your rights, but I think *you* are missing *my*
point entirely....

I made a point of telling people that I was killfiling Gunner, because
I feel he is abusing the inherent openness of this forum to constantly
spout of on political topics.
My statement was also within my rights, check under freedom of speech.


Do you really believe ANYBODY cares if or why your are killfiling Gunner?

For that matter, why should anybody care if and/or why you DO or DO NOT
killfile anybody?

THAT is my point.

If you don't want to see his - or anybody else's - stuff, by all means
exercise whatever freedoms you choose and ignore and/or killfile him.....

......but what is the point of telling the whole group that you have
killfiled someone - other than to hope that you can convince others of
Gunner's alleged sins/faux-pas who will then jump on your political
bandwagon, and join in the "shunning"?

Trying to get others to boycott/shun someone because of their political
beliefs takes on an almost-terroristic quality.

Al-Quaida is trying - in its own somewhat more forceful expressions of
belief - to get others to keep the United States and its Allies from
participating in that big group known as the World.

Not liking something and making changes so you don't have to deal with it
is something that is certainly well within your rights, but it becomes
political when you decide to try and convince other people that they should
adopt your stance on the person/issue and join your boycott.

Your statement is well within your rights, but it *is* as political as any
other attempt to create a boycott.

Announcing that you are killfiling someone, and the reasons why you are, is
as political as some of the things that Gunner posts, and for which he is
taking some heat.

At least that is *my* opinion.


I wouldn't even mind so much if his posts made sense, but he routinely
picks the most idiotic sources for his posts, and rarely does any
research to verify if it has any merit in the first place.


That is, of course, *your* opinion, to which, I again agree, you are
entitled....but you apparently, hope to convince others to join you in
support of your choice to boycott/shun Gunner.

Some of us - I may or may not be included in this group - enjoy a lot of
Gunner's stuff.

Although I see a lot people exercising their right to disagree with Gunner,
I really don't see that many honest-to-God complaints - other than the
occasional announced killfiling.

So, he is either being read and enjoyed or debated - maybe even secretly
laughed at for his political stance....

....or he is being ignored/killfiled by a number of people who do not feel
such a compelling need to announce their actions and reasons.


Sorry guys but I grew up at Purdue University, The concept of verifying
your sources researching your ideas got embedded in my head at a young
age.
I may be elitist but I don't feel everybody is entitled to their
opinion.
I believe everybody is entitled to their INFORMED opinion.
If you have something intelligent to say I may just listen.
If not, then GO AWAY.

He feels that it is his right to post whatever he likes.
Well actually no.

Aw, Geez!!!

What happened to that "Freedom of Speech" flag that you were so vigorously
waving just above? ( "My statement was also within my rights, check under
freedom of speech." ) It seems to have tattered rather quickly.

Isn't Gunner - or anybody else who posts here - entitled to that same
right?

Didn't *you* just post what *you* wanted to post?

Is Freedom of Speech only "free" when certain other parties or the majority
agree?

Or does it need to be "informed" in order to qualify under "free speech"?

And who decides if it is "informed"....you? I certainly do not want that
job.

Does a person *not* have the right to say "...black is white" no matter how
dumb and foolish it may sound to other, "more informed" people?

Can someone exercise this freedom to write something that is totally
opposed to your belief system - or does the Constitution draw the line at
things with which Ernie doesn't agree?

Who was the politician in American history who stated that he was opposed
to what was being said, but that he would defend to his death the person's
right to say it?


This group was established to discuss METALWORKING......


.....Which, ironically, this particular post, in which you are obviously
participating, is *not* discussing.


By not abiding by that he is violating a "gentlemen's agreement" to act
civilized and play by the rules.

How come I was never informed about any tacit agreement to which I would be
subjecting myself by the mere act of participating before I was allowed to
post here?

Doesn't THAT violate some sort of "right to know" to which I am entitled?

Usenet has no police force.

No, it doesn't!.....unless, of course, you count the self-appointed ones...

The only control placed on us is by ourselves.
If you enjoy anarchy then have fun and enjoy.
I like a little order in my otherwise chaotic life.

I like the idea that there is at least one place where people can rise
to a more civilized level of behavior.


I belong to several moderated forums where there is high degree of civility
and politeness, but I haven't found anything remotely similar in the Wild
West, in-your-face atmosphere of the usenet.

I have never resorted to name-calling or profane language on the usenet -
or in my daily life, for that matter.

I believe I can get my point across in a civil manner, but that sometimes
brings out an inordinate amount of incivility from those who cannot
participate in a debate of ideas. (Can anybody remember the guy whose name
started with "C" and was followed by a three-letter word for donkey which
rhymed with "pass"?)

Boycott, shun, ignore and/or killfile Gunner if you so wish, but I really
don't need to know if you do, and I really don't care why......

You make your own decision based on your own reasons.

I'll make up my own mind on Gunner - and others - based on my own reasons,
with which, I promise, you will not be burdened.


Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Race Car Chassis Setup and Dial-in Services

Another excellent post!!
Sue

Sue wrote:



I suspect that people who actively use "killfiles" are actually too weak to
control their own urges, and must rely on the computer software to make
their choices for them, else they backslide and actually read postings from
the person with whom they are currently in disagreement.

As for me you are partially correct. My reason for killfiling people
is usually not that I don't want to read their posts but that I don't
want to reply to their posts. I admit that I have no self-control.
(



AND........

....even if I *were* to use a "killfile", why would I need/want to
broadcast that particular information to everyone?

I don't. I'm a silent killfiler as I don't believe in the grand
announcement. I did however start a thread yesterday to a certain
person and explained that I have that person killfiled. I also
admitted that this was rather a CS move on my part. Shrug.
Your post is really good. Enjoyable reading. I'm not going to tell
you if I'm going to killfile you, though. G
Sue

rest of good post snipped

And it is perfectly understandable to some, that you took the action of which
you speak.

mikey

Doozer wrote in article
. ..
Hello,
I read your post and it is evident that you feel strongly on the
subject of this "Killfile". This is the first time I have heard of a
Killfile, so you are educating me about them. So I got to thinking,
Is not a Killfile program simmilar to programming only your favorite
stations on your TV remote? Example, I really don't care about
sports. They just don't interest me. I like cars and mechanical
things, but I don't even follow nascar. So on my TV remote, I would
probably exclude ESPN, Sports Network,, etc. I really don't care
about the women's network or the decorating channel either. So is this
Killfiling? By using a killfile program, as I understand, you select
not to view certin internet content. Sounds like a filter that would
save time by not viewing the data you don't want. As like faster
channel surfing. Might be a good thing!? --Doozer



Actually, I really do NOT feel strongly on the concept of killfiling. As I
have pointed out, people should killfile or NOT killfile at their pleasure.


I have pointed out that I, personally, do not understand the need for
killfiling, but others have their own reasons for the practice. It really
doesn't matter to me if someone does or does not killfile.

It is out there, it is a legal concept, and you have the right to use or
not use it at your leisure.

I do feel strongly, however, about the apparent belief of some that you
MUST broadcast to the whole world who and why you have killfiled - or the
whole killfile effort is, somehow, negated.

Using your TV Remote analogy is good.

Once you have programmed your remote to your own, personal favorites, do
you then call the TV cable company - pointing out to them that you have not
programmed the "all-swimming" channel because they make their lifeguards
wear bright yellow swimsuits when they all are, obviously, "summers" on the
color spectrum who would look much better in pastel colors?

What do they care?

No! You simply do not program the "all-swimming" channel into your remote
if you do not wish to watch it.....end of issue.

You may choose to take up the issue of lifeguard swimsuit colors with the
"all-swimming" network, but telling the local cable provider you don't like
that network's application of colors is really a waste of their time - and
yours.

If you have an issue with someone's comments, debate the issue with them.
That's the mature thing to do.

If you want to disagree with a person's point of view, do it with that
person. Don't try and drag us into it.

If you find the debate - or the person with whom you are debating -
frustrating or exasperating, then simply exercise your right to NOT debate.
You will never convince everybody to adopt your point of view on anything,
so why beat your head against the wall?

Something tells me that Gunner has outlasted or out-debated most of the
people who now choose to killfile him. They cannot bring Gunner around to
agree with their own concept of what is right, so they boycott him and try
to get others to do the same - as if that would somehow justify their
choice, and support their point of view.

But announcing that you have killfiled someone for expressing their ideas -
with which you do not agree - is immature at best, and attempted
manipulation of sentiment at worst. (i.e. "I hate what Joe Blow says, and
I'm killfiling him. You ought to hate him too when you see why I killfiled
him.")

Exercise your rights to make your own choices based on your own beliefs,
and stand by them.......

.......but spare us the political crap and attempts to garner support for
your point(s) of view.

Most of us are mature enough to gather data and make our own informed
decisions.



Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Chassis Analysis ServiceRacing

I'll make up my own mind on Gunner - and others - based on my own reasons,
with which, I promise, you will not be burdened.


Every so often, I read a post and find myself thinking, .. Damn, I wish I'd
written that. Bob's original post, starting this thread, was one of those.
Thanks again.
Greg Sefton

"Bob Paulin" writes:

I have pointed out that I, personally, do not understand the need
for killfiling, but others have their own reasons for the practice.

The kill file mechanism can be moderately useful at times, but is, as
you say, a tool one can use for one's own benefit, the use of it being
of no interest to anyone else. I might, for instance, choose to set
up my news reader to hide all threads in r.c.m with the words "forge"
or "weld" in the subject string, or I might have it hide postings from
you, including direct responses to your posting -- or entire subthreads
on the condition that you have posted in them. (I don't use a kill
file myself, but the news reader I use has an extremely sophisticated
implementation that can do these things, and much more.)

I do feel strongly, however, about the apparent belief of some that
you MUST broadcast to the whole world who and why you have killfiled
- or the whole killfile effort is, somehow, negated.

My recollection of this, from back in the early days, is that one did
not normally announce the use of a kill file to hide specific people's
postings. When done, it was done by posting a followup containing
nothing but the single phrase

*plonk*

which is the sound of a poster hitting the bottom of the kill file.
It was meant as extreme ridicule: it says that you find the poster so
totally worthless, that you no longer want to even know what he thinks
-- in effect, you make him an un-person in your own world. It had to
be used sparingly, of course, both because of the extreme severity of
such a statement, and in order not to dilute its meaning. Being
caught responding to a poster after having plonked him is, of course,
extremely embarrassing.

I guess the whole thing has lost much of its force over time, but, to
me, the verbose and frequent plonking we see these days looks mostly
like childish whining.

-tih
--
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

On 06 Mar 2004 14:34:36 GMT, (Bray Haven) wrote:

===I'll make up my own mind on Gunner - and others - based on my own reasons,
===with which, I promise, you will not be burdened.
===
===
===Every so often, I read a post and find myself thinking, .. Damn, I wish I'd
===written that. Bob's original post, starting this thread, was one of those.
===Thanks again.
===Greg Sefton


The only thing I have against Gunner is his affection for cats. I HATE
cats! Other than that little item he is ok in my book!

Anyone remember that online page titled 1001 ways to F*$# UP a Cat?
I could easily make it 2001 ways without even trying.

Regards


Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

Bob Paulin wrote:

Something tells me that Gunner has outlasted or out-debated most of the
people who now choose to killfile him. They cannot bring Gunner around to
agree with their own concept of what is right, so they boycott him and try
to get others to do the same - as if that would somehow justify their
choice, and support their point of view.


Reversely, does that make me "mature" for not killfiling Gunner, or anyone else
for that matter? Or announcing that I have done so. The whole concept of
killfiling is rather useless anyway, because posts by the person(s) killfiled
are quoted more often than not anyway.

I bet Gunner does not killfile me either. Somehow we both must derive some
satisfaction and/or sick pleasure out of continuing to attack each other. We
both despise each other's political leanings for one reason or another. But
killfiling each other for it? What a silly idea.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
(I don't use a kill
file myself, but the news reader I use has an extremely sophisticated
implementation that can do these things, and much more.)


What newsreader do you use?

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Abrasha writes:

What newsreader do you use?

Gnus, which is part of the extensible, programmable editor, Emacs.

-tih
--
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

My favorite is the automatic cat washing device. Put some soap in the
toilet, throw in the cat, close the cover quickly and hold down for 2
minutes. The cat will self agitate -
Bob S.




On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:14:33 GMT, (Roy) wrote:


Anyone remember that online page titled 1001 ways to F*$# UP a Cat?
I could easily make it 2001 ways without even trying.

Regards


Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 18:29:27 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Bob Paulin wrote:

Something tells me that Gunner has outlasted or out-debated most of the
people who now choose to killfile him. They cannot bring Gunner around to
agree with their own concept of what is right, so they boycott him and try
to get others to do the same - as if that would somehow justify their
choice, and support their point of view.


Reversely, does that make me "mature" for not killfiling Gunner, or anyone else
for that matter? Or announcing that I have done so. The whole concept of
killfiling is rather useless anyway, because posts by the person(s) killfiled
are quoted more often than not anyway.

I bet Gunner does not killfile me either. Somehow we both must derive some
satisfaction and/or sick pleasure out of continuing to attack each other. We
both despise each other's political leanings for one reason or another. But
killfiling each other for it? What a silly idea.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Excellent point. I simply refuse to kill file you, for the same
reason many folks go to auto races. You often have spectacular wrecks,
and the half time show where you drive out in the Clown Car is
marvelous entertainment.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:14:33 GMT, (Roy) wrote:

On 06 Mar 2004 14:34:36 GMT, (Bray Haven) wrote:

===I'll make up my own mind on Gunner - and others - based on my own reasons,
===with which, I promise, you will not be burdened.
===
===
===Every so often, I read a post and find myself thinking, .. Damn, I wish I'd
===written that. Bob's original post, starting this thread, was one of those.
===Thanks again.
===Greg Sefton


The only thing I have against Gunner is his affection for cats. I HATE
cats! Other than that little item he is ok in my book!

Anyone remember that online page titled 1001 ways to F*$# UP a Cat?
I could easily make it 2001 ways without even trying.

Regards


Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.


Real men own cats.
(or are owned by them)

G

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

Leo Lichtman wrote in article
...

(clip) Trying to get others to boycott/shun someone because of their
political beliefs takes on an almost-terroristic quality (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, THAT'S the overstatement of the century.





Aw Geez, Leo!!!!

I DID say "almost", didn't I ???

I thought I was pulling back a bit on the reins on that one in order to
come across as "nicely understated."

How many times did you have to read that entire post in order to come up
with a single sentence that you question?

By the way, you ought to be commended on the excellent job you did in
editing the context right out of that single sentence.

Maybe you ought to killfile me, huh?

Please?


Bob Paulin

Abrasha wrote in article
...

SNIP

The whole concept of
killfiling is rather useless anyway, because posts by the person(s)
killfiled
are quoted more often than not anyway.



Excellent point!

Let's see....I can killfile someone, then, using Batman-like words such as
"PLONK!", *announce* it to the world in spectacular fashion in order to
prop up my political stance or stated principles......

......but I can CONTINUE to read at least *most* of the allegedly
shunned/boycotted material quoted in the replies, while people may believe
I am actually NOT doing so in a hunger-strike-like support of my political
beliefs.....

.....which makes the whole concept of *announcing* a killfiling more than
merely political.

Killfile *announcements* can now rise to a appreciable level of
hypocracy!!!!

That's absolutely hilarious.....if you think about it!

Someone alleges to do something based on their principles, yet actually
ends up doing something hypocritical instead.

The "principled" thing to do again boils down to personal choice. Killfile
someone and keep it to yourself so as not to become a hypocrit, OR simply
do not click on subjects that offend you.

Even "I" could figure out that "OT - Kerry exposed" was NOT about John
Kerry's hobby of doing metalwork in the nude before I clicked on the
subject, and I seriously doubted that there would much - if any - metal
content......

.......yet, I clicked on it anyway, so I really have no reason to complain,
do I?


Bob Paulin - R.A.C.E.
Racing Chassis Analysis Services

Using your TV Remote analogy is good.

Once you have programmed your remote to your own, personal favorites, do
you then call the TV cable company - pointing out to them that you have not
programmed the "all-swimming" channel because they make their lifeguards
wear bright yellow swimsuits when they all are, obviously, "summers" on the
color spectrum who would look much better in pastel colors?



Awesome. That's funny. The whole killfile thing is funny to me as
well. Heres my take:


Step 1: Read that "so-and-so" has killfiled "asshole".

Step 2: A day or so later you read a reply from "so-and-so" to another
post from "asshole".

Step 3: "Asshole" says something to effect of..."thought you killfiled
me(?) admit defeat now, you can't make it through a day without the
benefit of my devine wisdom", ending with a witty barb pertaining to
"so-and-so's" inteligence or size of manhood.

Step 4: "So-and-so" retreats explaining something about their
newsreader not filtering right, or that they simply saw "assholes" post
because it was piggybacked on someone elses post, "so-and-so" wraps up
reply with the announcement of the mother of all killfiles, vowing that
"assholes" posts will never, ever be read by him again.

Step 5: See step 2.

Gunner, I have no idea what your response was, because I have my fingers in
my ears--lalalala.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 21:33:21 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:14:33 GMT, (Roy) wrote:
The only thing I have against Gunner is his affection for cats. I HATE
cats! Other than that little item he is ok in my book!

Anyone remember that online page titled 1001 ways to F*$# UP a Cat?
I could easily make it 2001 ways without even trying.

What if your afterlife hell is run by cats? Better rethink your
attitudes, or you may end up the 'catnip mouse on a string' for all
eternity...

If you can't love a dog or cat, you probably can't love another
person, either. In which case, it sure sucks to be you.

Real men own cats.
(or are owned by them)

People own dogs. Cats own people.

Real men are neither afraid to own a dog, or be owned by a cat.

-- Bruce --

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 04:37:49 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

Anyone remember that online page titled 1001 ways to F*$# UP a Cat?
I could easily make it 2001 ways without even trying.

What if your afterlife hell is run by cats? Better rethink your
attitudes, or you may end up the 'catnip mouse on a string' for all
eternity...

If you can't love a dog or cat, you probably can't love another
person, either. In which case, it sure sucks to be you.

Real men own cats.
(or are owned by them)

People own dogs. Cats own people.

Real men are neither afraid to own a dog, or be owned by a cat.

-- Bruce --

To dogs, people are Gods

To cats, people are Staff.


Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:41:29 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:

Gunner, I have no idea what your response was, because I have my fingers in
my ears--lalalala.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Regards

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

Leo Lichtman wrote in article
...

(clip) Trying to get others to boycott/shun someone because of their
political beliefs takes on an almost-terroristic quality (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, THAT'S the overstatement of the century.




Aw Geez, Leo!!!!

I DID say "almost", didn't I ???

I thought I was pulling back a bit on the reins on that one in order to
come across as "nicely understated."

How many times did you have to read that entire post in order to come up
with a single sentence that you question?

By the way, you ought to be commended on the excellent job you did in
editing the context right out of that single sentence.

Maybe you ought to killfile me, huh?

Please?


Bob Paulin

Gunner wrote:


To dogs, people are Gods

To cats, people are Staff.


At times through history cats have been worshipped as gods: They have
never forgotten this -- and make sure humans do not forget it either.

It was meant as extreme ridicule: it says that you find the poster so
totally worthless, that you no longer want to even know what he thinks
-- in effect, you make him an un-person in your own world.

But everyone reading knows that you have simply run out of viable, credible
"ammo" in the "discussion".)
Greg Sefton

mine never does, and she isn't timid about applying a well deserved
disciplining. or hissing
in article , John Husvar at
wrote on 3/7/04 5:42 AM:

Gunner wrote:


To dogs, people are Gods

To cats, people are Staff.


At times through history cats have been worshipped as gods: They have
never forgotten this -- and make sure humans do not forget it either.