On 2009-11-30, Don Foreman wrote:
OK, I see what is the issue now. Not being a veteran of anything, it
is not an issue that bothers me personally, but if it did, I would ask
to see some paperwork if I was in doubt. I thought that there was some
computerized way to check if someone was a veteran. I recall an
article about fake Navy Seals, and how easy it is to look up.

i

I'd be surprised if that was true unless Seals are a special case, but
go for it if it interests you. Please share what you discover if you
care to explore. Hacking gummint databases is far beyond my cyber
skill level.

Even if individual 201 files are accessable to the public or to the
artful hacker, they may be less informative than some might imagine.
For example, my DD-214 lists unit assignments but no locations. Unit
locations during wartime were often classified. My DD-214 cites that
I entered at Fort Belvoir VA and was was discharged at Ft. Lewis WN,
no mention of where I might have been between entry and discharge. 201
files are not classified so classified activities and assignments are
not recorded in them. (Well duh!) Beyond that, assignment to a unit
doesn't necessarily infer constant co-location with that unit's HQ. I
was often not co-located with my unit's HQ. Beyond that, TDY
assignments are about invisible unless one could hack the pay
records, but even then all the pay records would reveal is a TDY
assignment with no further detail. Pay records would indicate combat
pay but I don't think pay records were included in 201 files.
Decorations certainly would be included. DD-214 does list unit
assignments so it may be possible to reconstruct location if
now-declassified unit history can be found. For example:
http://www.louisianabulldog.com/35thengineerbattalion/

I was S-3 of the 35th engr bn for a little while. Operations officer,
kingpin of a combat engr bn. Major's billet but they were a bit short
of majors at the time so this ****ant snot-nosed high-talent silverbar
got stuck with the job. Purely ****ed off the company commanders
(captains) who outranked me because I defined their mission
assignments and made it stick. I shall never forget the able
assistance of the redoubtable MSG Richey. Make no mistake, NCO's run
the Army. MSG Richey purely loved it when I got my daily ass-chewing
from the puckerass pencil-necked ring-knocker (West Point) Colonel
who enjoyed taking credit for our results while deploring my methods.
MSG Richey had worked in the ops shop for years but had never served
under an S-3 who got his ass chewed like clockwork at 1600 every
freakin' day while somehow continuing to get more responsibility for
running the freakin' battalion. We did have some fun adventures. Hint:
a combat engr bn has a lovely stash of high explosives and I was quite
good with demo. Missions from Generals dont usually specify method,
only desired outcome. Oh yeah! Generals seem to understand that ya
can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.

MSG Richey did know how to get 'er done quietly but effectively. He
could kick and lick any E-8 first sergeant in the battalion in less
than a minute. Candy asses don't get to be first sergeants, but MSG
Richey was not exactly a politically-correct fragile flower.

He wasn't a bit reluctant to get 'er done and never had any
complaints lodged against him. I was very glad he liked me because
he was a huge help to me in getting our job done. Get the 1Sgt's in
line, they'll lead their captains. Make no mistake, sergeants run the
army.

That DD-214 is what I would check if I was interested. You may or may
not learn enough from it and from whether it exists at all. It is not
really my cup of tea and not really something that I would like to
pursue.

i

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
The point is is that proliferation of easy credit created an illusion
of wealth, due to rising asset prices.
Everything else is not as unreasonable and usually leads to decent
allocation of resources.
Not according to statistics. As of now 1% of the public owns as much
as the other 95% do.
Can you substantiate this?
He's right Ig.
What's missing, of course, is the four percent that isn't included in his
statement.
They are a big chunk to.

Thanks for confirming what I was saying about the extreme
maldistribution of wealth in the country.

Just because someone confirms your erroneous number, does not make it
true. The actual number is that top 1% control as much wealth as the
bottom 90%, not 95%.

Even people like Iggy don't know this, and is why they find it had
to believe. People just have no idea what has happened since Ronald
Reagan got elected. The amount of wealth that has shifted from the
middle class to the fortunate few, whether it be 5% or 1%, is
staggering. The point is the country is doing something radically
wrong. So not only are the next generations going to be worse off
than their parents, but the majority of the country's wealth is
going into fewer and fewer hands.

This used to be somewhat corrected with progressive estate tax.

Unfortunately, thanks to very misguided legislation, estate tax was
repealed. This is a big mistake that will make inequality last for
many generations.


The whole idea of America was a place where the middle class was
dominant, most people did pretty well, and the very rich and very poor
were extremely small in numbers.

I do not believe that it ever was a case.

i



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

On 2009-11-30, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
The point is is that proliferation of easy credit created an illusion
of wealth, due to rising asset prices.
Everything else is not as unreasonable and usually leads to decent
allocation of resources.
Not according to statistics. As of now 1% of the public owns as much
as the other 95% do.
Can you substantiate this?
He's right Ig.
What's missing, of course, is the four percent that isn't included in his
statement.
They are a big chunk to.

Thanks for confirming what I was saying about the extreme
maldistribution of wealth in the country.

Just because someone confirms your erroneous number, does not make it
true. The actual number is that top 1% control as much wealth as the
bottom 90%, not 95%.

Even people like Iggy don't know this, and is why they find it had
to believe. People just have no idea what has happened since Ronald
Reagan got elected. The amount of wealth that has shifted from the
middle class to the fortunate few, whether it be 5% or 1%, is
staggering. The point is the country is doing something radically
wrong. So not only are the next generations going to be worse off
than their parents, but the majority of the country's wealth is
going into fewer and fewer hands.

This used to be somewhat corrected with progressive estate tax.

Unfortunately, thanks to very misguided legislation, estate tax was
repealed. This is a big mistake that will make inequality last for
many generations.


The whole idea of America was a place where the middle class was
dominant, most people did pretty well, and the very rich and very poor
were extremely small in numbers.

I do not believe that it ever was a case.

i



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

I do not really feel old, but I do entertain scary thoughts like that,
more often.

i

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:29:05 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
The point is is that proliferation of easy credit created an illusion
of wealth, due to rising asset prices.
Everything else is not as unreasonable and usually leads to decent
allocation of resources.
Not according to statistics. As of now 1% of the public owns as much
as the other 95% do.
Can you substantiate this?
He's right Ig.
What's missing, of course, is the four percent that isn't included in his
statement.
They are a big chunk to.

Thanks for confirming what I was saying about the extreme
maldistribution of wealth in the country.

Just because someone confirms your erroneous number, does not make it
true. The actual number is that top 1% control as much wealth as the
bottom 90%, not 95%.

Even people like Iggy don't know this, and is why they find it had
to believe. People just have no idea what has happened since Ronald
Reagan got elected. The amount of wealth that has shifted from the
middle class to the fortunate few, whether it be 5% or 1%, is
staggering. The point is the country is doing something radically
wrong. So not only are the next generations going to be worse off
than their parents, but the majority of the country's wealth is
going into fewer and fewer hands.

This used to be somewhat corrected with progressive estate tax.

Unfortunately, thanks to very misguided legislation, estate tax was
repealed. This is a big mistake that will make inequality last for
many generations.


The whole idea of America was a place where the middle class was
dominant, most people did pretty well, and the very rich and very poor
were extremely small in numbers.

I do not believe that it ever was a case.

i



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...


****.....

Gunner, Nov 11, 1953.......


"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:01 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold



Yabbut, at least Queen wrote a song about you :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:01 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold

That's me, and thoroughly enjoying the fact. A little this and that
here and there and life is good!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:01 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"

wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold



Yabbut, at least Queen wrote a song about you :-)


A little clarity, please, Mark. I have no clue! :-)

Harold

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:01 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"

wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold



Yabbut, at least Queen wrote a song about you :-)


A little clarity, please, Mark. I have no clue! :-)

Harold

"Gerald Miller" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:01 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold

That's me, and thoroughly enjoying the fact. A little this and that
here and there and life is good!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Yeah, I gotta admit, the quality of life is good. Very good. If only my
tired body gave me more relief. I'm troubled with arthritis. Buggered a
shoulder a week ago and it's still giving me fits. Making it hard to get
anything done on the house.

I sure miss that 30 year old body I once had, but I wouldn't trade my
mental state for those earlier years, especially those wasted on my ex-wife.

Some times you have to go through some ugliness to get where you appreciate
the right things in life. I thank my ex for that, but not much more.

Harold

"Gerald Miller" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:01 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-



Were you living here in the 1950s?

I was born in 1971.

You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold

That's me, and thoroughly enjoying the fact. A little this and that
here and there and life is good!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Yeah, I gotta admit, the quality of life is good. Very good. If only my
tired body gave me more relief. I'm troubled with arthritis. Buggered a
shoulder a week ago and it's still giving me fits. Making it hard to get
anything done on the house.

I sure miss that 30 year old body I once had, but I wouldn't trade my
mental state for those earlier years, especially those wasted on my ex-wife.

Some times you have to go through some ugliness to get where you appreciate
the right things in life. I thank my ex for that, but not much more.

Harold

I was asked by two older Masonic brothers tonight how old I was -
they are in their 70's and thought I was 35 or so. I'm 62.

They thought I had a soft life. Not so, but I took care better maybe!
My family lives a long time. I'm not sure I can handle the high tech
change in the next 40 years :-)


Martin

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...
Ignoramus10998 wrote:
On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-


Were you living here in the 1950s?
I was born in 1971.
You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold

I was asked by two older Masonic brothers tonight how old I was -
they are in their 70's and thought I was 35 or so. I'm 62.

They thought I had a soft life. Not so, but I took care better maybe!
My family lives a long time. I'm not sure I can handle the high tech
change in the next 40 years :-)


Martin

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...
Ignoramus10998 wrote:
On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-


Were you living here in the 1950s?
I was born in 1971.
You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:01 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"

wrote:


Yabbut, at least Queen wrote a song about you :-)


A little clarity, please, Mark. I have no clue! :-)

Harold

Mark refers to a song by Queen, named " '39".
Its a delightful little piece, about Einsteinian time dilation and space
travel.
The protagonist "sets sail" in '39 and returns in '39.
100 years have passed on earth, yet only one year has passed for him.

Worth a listen.

--
Jeff R.

"Jeff R." wrote in message
u...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:01 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"

wrote:


Yabbut, at least Queen wrote a song about you :-)


A little clarity, please, Mark. I have no clue! :-)

Harold

Mark refers to a song by Queen, named " '39".
Its a delightful little piece, about Einsteinian time dilation and space
travel.
The protagonist "sets sail" in '39 and returns in '39.
100 years have passed on earth, yet only one year has passed for him.

Worth a listen.

--
Jeff R.

Hmmmm! Where might one hear such a song? I tend to listen to jazz and
classical music exclusively.

Thanks, Jeff.

Harold

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
I was asked by two older Masonic brothers tonight how old I was -
they are in their 70's and thought I was 35 or so. I'm 62.

Heh! That doesn't happen to me, although I am not wrinkled much. My hair
(I have almost all of it, just a little taller forehead) betrays me,
however. It's almost show white. Young in spirit, however, in spite of
cranky joints! :-)


They thought I had a soft life. Not so, but I took care better maybe!
My family lives a long time. I'm not sure I can handle the high tech
change in the next 40 years :-)

I'm not waiting for the changes. They have me fully confused already.
And-------it doesn't get easier as you get older, as I'm sure you know.

I ask myself almost daily------where have all the years gone? Seems like
just the other day Susan and I got married. That was over 32 years ago.

Harold


Martin

Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...
Ignoramus10998 wrote:
On 2009-11-27, Hawke wrote:
Ignoramus11641 wrote:
snip-


Were you living here in the 1950s?
I was born in 1971.
You're a toddler

1970 for me, rapidly approaching my geezer birthday *sigh*. Sucks to be
old...

Yeah, you poor *******s. So old. Try being born in '39!

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
Mark refers to a song by Queen, named " '39".
Its a delightful little piece, about Einsteinian time dilation and space
travel.
The protagonist "sets sail" in '39 and returns in '39.
100 years have passed on earth, yet only one year has passed for him.

Worth a listen.

--
Jeff R.

Hmmmm! Where might one hear such a song? I tend to listen to jazz and
classical music exclusively.

Hmmmm...
Pour a stiff drink, sit in a comfy chair and try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnfeI0h9eB0

Neither jazz nor classical, but a classic nonetheless.

--
Jeff R.

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
Mark refers to a song by Queen, named " '39".
Its a delightful little piece, about Einsteinian time dilation and space
travel.
The protagonist "sets sail" in '39 and returns in '39.
100 years have passed on earth, yet only one year has passed for him.

Worth a listen.

--
Jeff R.

Hmmmm! Where might one hear such a song? I tend to listen to jazz and
classical music exclusively.

Hmmmm...
Pour a stiff drink, sit in a comfy chair and try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnfeI0h9eB0

Neither jazz nor classical, but a classic nonetheless.

--
Jeff R.


Thanks, Jeff. My sound card died recently, but we have a new compuyter
waiting in the wings. I'll save the link and puruse the production. I'll
be sure to let you know my thoughts. It may be a while,, still waiting to
receive W7, which I'd like to install before starting to use the new
computer.

Regards,

Harold

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...

Hmmmm...
Pour a stiff drink, sit in a comfy chair and try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnfeI0h9eB0

Neither jazz nor classical, but a classic nonetheless.

--
Jeff R.


Thanks, Jeff. My sound card died recently, but we have a new compuyter
waiting in the wings. I'll save the link and puruse the production.
I'll be sure to let you know my thoughts. It may be a while,, still
waiting to receive W7, which I'd like to install before starting to use
the new computer.


Its worth the wait, Harold.
(The Queen song, that is... can't vouch for W7. I'm in the process of
migrating to Ubuntu.)

Cheers from Sydney

--
Jeff R.

wrote

bull**** snipped.

It is obvious to all that you are educated beyond your capacity.

Bye.

plink!

On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:51:10 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote

bull**** snipped.

It is obvious to all that you are educated beyond your capacity.

Bye.

plink!

Again? You phony plonkers should keep a log or something.

Wayne

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:51:10 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote

bull**** snipped.

It is obvious to all that you are educated beyond your capacity.

Bye.

plink!

Again? You phony plonkers should keep a log or something.

Wayne

Chuckle!

H