IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Just for you, Brandioch
I prepared a slide show. Feel special I spent the time to put this together just for you.

I've hosted it on my blog:

[link|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com/be0tch.htm|http://blastersblog....ot.com/be0tch.htm]

Blogspot seems to be dog slow hosting regular web pages. It loads kinda slow.

Hope you have as much fun perusing the show as you did laughing earlier today!

Enjoy!!
[link|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com]
New I feel "special".
This presentation contains content that your browser may not be able to show properly. This presentation was optimized for more recent versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Mozilla.

Hmmmm, white. Lots of white. Very pretty white.
New Re: I feel "special".
Oh well. I guess Microsoft hasn't assimilated everyone.
New there is 1 or 2 people around here that use $MS not many
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Not to bust in, but it's busted for me too.
Can you make it a little more standards-compliant? We're quite fond of web standards here.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Not to bust in, but it's busted for me too.
Hang on - working on it.
[link|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com]
New anarchy in action :-)
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Re: Just for you, Brandioch - again
Okay, just for you, again. I put it up on my Linux server and used Mozilla on it, it works. Some of the graphics look like crap, but there you have it.

Plus, I have a crappy digital camera.

[link|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com/be0tch.htm|http://blastersblog....ot.com/be0tch.htm]
[link|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com]
New *snicker*
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New hm, no separation papers, so sharing classified oer the net?
me dux :-) nice presentation
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Nah
I saw the wink, but evaluation report are not classified.

I guess I coulda taken a shot of my DD214, but its locked in the fireproof box.
New You seem awfully quiet...
New Brandioch is on the west coast
so it might be later that he checks in. If you hang around for a while you will notice that right shifted posts stop when argument appears futile.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Right shifted posts?
New arguments between 2 posters shift to the right
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Re: arguments between 2 posters shift to the right
Check.

Of course this is a whole new thread.
New Could have predicted the response.
and would have been right :|
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I've been "Own3d"?
Hmmm, a "second officer" in 1990.

That means HS + college.

Figure 22 yoa in 1990.

2003 is 1990 + 13

That would be 35 yoa (low average).

"Own3d"?

Again, something I'd expect that from a high school kid.

No, I can't make out the other items. Nor do I recognize the ring.

Yes, you have a seal watch. But you weren't a seal. But you wear a seal watch. Hmmmm......

I have a friend who is ex-Marine. I could post his stuff and claim to be ex-Marine. Of course, anyone who WAS in the Marines would QUICKLY detect the flaws in my war stories.

I have friends who are ex-Navy. Same situation. Again, anyone who WAS in the Navy would be able to find the flaws in my claims.

And so on.

Nope. Still not convinced. Your displayed knowledge doesn't match what you claim.
New Re: I've been "Own3d"?
>>That would be 35 yoa (low average).

Very good! You can do the math. But I turned 36 2 months ago.

>>"Own3d"?

>>Again, something I'd expect that from a high school kid.

I know! You seem to have this fetish about how persons from a particular background have to use the lexicon you specify for them.

Besides, I like to be able prove I'm still a hep cat to the youngsters.

>>No, I can't make out the other items. Nor do I recognize the ring.

I'll give you a hint. In the seal on the side, it reads "Duty, Honor, Country."

>>Nope. Still not convinced. Your displayed knowledge doesn't match what you claim.

Okay.

But you said I could have no knowledge of the FM's, and you see them there in fron of my monitor, don't you? Think I rushed out somewhere to borrow them? How would I know who had them?

Do you still stand by the claim that I am a high schooler, never been in the Army? In the face of all that?

New Now you're claiming to be from Westpoint?
I'll give you a hint. In the seal on the side, it reads "Duty, Honor, Country."
Is it impossible for you to just state something clearly?

But you said I could have no knowledge of the FM's, and you see them there in fron of my monitor, don't you?
Great. And I can take a picture of a book on advanced quantum theory. It doesn't mean I know anything in that book.

Think I rushed out somewhere to borrow them? How would I know who had them?
They are your uncle's. Your mom is storing them in your basement. He's also the one that knows your love of military fantasy and got you that watch and ring.

Do you still stand by the claim that I am a high schooler, never been in the Army? In the face of all that?
Are you telling me that a Westpoint officer would take the UNSUBSTANTIATED SECOND HAND word of a soldier that contradicted EVERY regulation and claim it was FACT?

Yes, that is what you have done.

You did NOT personally witness ANY of the events you claim happened.

Nor was there ANY form of substantiation made available to you.

Yet you claim that you have certain knowledge that such occured.

Check the ethics section of Westpoint. You'll see even MORE rules that you've just violated.

Have I not made myself clear on the matter?

I do NOT believe that the items you CLAIM actually happened, did, in fact, actually happen.

Now, either I'm wrong, or you're a liar.

So, to show you're not a liar, you say...... that they actually happened.

To show that I'm not wrong, I quote and reference the appropriate FM's and link to ACTUAL EOD operations in that same area (Iraq) during that same time frame doing what you CLAIMED was done.

To counter my evidence, you say that, even though those people had the exact same training and were dealing with similar situations (unexploded munitions that may contain chemical agents) YOUR situation was different because...... it was different and it actually happened.

And your story KEEPS changing. Why is that? Or, not, EXACTLY changing. Just "clarifications"? Like how the guy in the weird cammies didn't have any insignia or nametags....

But it was okay because he was known to the soldier who turned the munition over to him.

I could claim to have be involved in a top secret underground submarine base in Arizona while I was in the Marines. I could even produce paperwork indicating I was in the Marines. And that would prove anything?

Or, better yet, I could say that one of my soldiers was on a mission with the FBI to collect an alien spaceship that landed. Here's a picture of my DD214.

This still isn't getting through to you, is it?

Your story is a LIE!
New Now who's the conspiracy theorist?
So, just to try to fake you out, I go and find someone who has this stuff that just a few days ago I didn't even know existed. I coopt him into playing along, so now we are conspiring to create a website with photos that actually support the story that I had concocted from reading Clancy and comic books.

Isn't it just simpler for me to be just telling the truth?
New Huh?
So, just to try to fake you out, I go and find someone who has this stuff that just a few days ago I didn't even know existed.
Huh? You didn't know your uncle existed until a few days ago?

He gave you that ring for your birthday.

Isn't it just simpler for me to be just telling the truth?
You mean the story with the maybe CIA agent who took a chemical munition (sarin) from one of your soldiers who was operating on a "special" mission that violated all of the regulations yet left no documentation or physical evidence?

Let's see, which story would require FEWER people be involved in the conspiracy?

#1. You and your uncle?
#2. The entire command structure of Operation Provide Comfort?

And I notice that you did not answer whether you graduated from Westpoint or not. Strange.
New Yep.
>>And I notice that you did not answer whether you graduated from Westpoint or not.

Yes, I did. They don't give those rings away in the Crackerjacks. No non-graduate can buy one, except off of the used market. No graduate would ever buy one for a non-graduate.

If you knew anything about West Point, you would know that. You might even know how to spell it.
New You do seem to have a problem with replies.
I said: "And I notice that you did not answer whether you graduated from Westpoint or not."

You replied:
Yes, I did.
Yes, you did answer whether you graduated from Westpoint? Or... Yes, you did graduate from Westpoint.

If you knew anything about West Point, you would know that. You might even know how to spell it.
Never been there. Never said I had been.

Now, why don't you be a good little plebe and post the rules about ethics from Westpoint. Hmmmmmm?

You did claim that something you had only heard about SECOND HAND with NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that violated EVERY regulation ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN.

But you keep claiming that this ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Despite the FACT that YOU did not PERSONALLY witness it nor was there ANY supporting evidence beyond the word of one soldier.

And NOW you're going to claim you're from Westpoint? Or rather, you're going to IMPLY that you're from Westpoint.

And I should have recognized that ring? Why?

Again, which would require the FEWEST people be involved in the conspiracy?

#1. You and your uncle.
#2. The entire command of Operation Provide Comfort.

And why are you continually claiming that something you didn't see, that you have no physical evidence of, actually happened? Despite it requiring massive violations by an entire command?
New On your last line
Despite it requiring massive violations by an entire command?
I can personally vouch that does happen, without stating any opinion on blasters claim.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New No, you do!
Silly, I know. I answer the questions. You just don't choose to read them, or you attack things that I did not actually write. So anyway, I hope you find this clear enough.

>>Yes, you did answer whether you graduated from Westpoint? Or... Yes, you did graduate from Westpoint.

Yes, I did graduate from West Point. And geez, at least spell it right. Two words, not one.

>>Now, why don't you be a good little plebe and post the rules about ethics from Westpoint. Hmmmmmm?

Long time since I was a plebe. I suppose you mean the Cadet Honor Code. "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do."

Of course that is a cadet honor code, and you aren't bound by it when you are no longer a cadet. However, that forms the core of what should be a stong basis in integrity and ethics. Rest assured, I am not telling a lie.

>>You did claim that something you had only heard about SECOND HAND with NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that violated EVERY regulation ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN.

>>But you keep claiming that this ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

>>Despite the FACT that YOU did not PERSONALLY witness it nor was there ANY supporting evidence beyond the word of one soldier.

Okay, let's break this down. First, no, I didn't personally witness it. Didn't claim to. I was never deployed to OPC and Northern Iraq. As I said, my soldiers were. Now the "one soldier" upon whose word I am basing the story is not some random stranger who walked up to me on the street one day. He was in fact a senior NCO with whom I had worked for over 2 years. He was my teammate on the first suspect package call I ever went on. He is someone who I trust, explicitly, and implicitly.

Now of course I have no physical evidence that it occured - if it had been a conventional warhead I was telling the story about, it wouldn't be laying around, either, and no documentation. It would have just gone boom - nothing left.

So, let's take a look at the story and lets see if we can find the falsehoods in it. Remember, just because an SOP says this is how something is supposed to happen, it doesn't mean it always happens that way. An FM is no proof that something not in the FM happened or didn't happen.

Here are elements of the story:

Existence of chemical weapons in Northern Iraq during Operation Provide Comfort.

The fact that chemical weapons were being used on Kurds in Northern Iraq is the reason why the UNSC passed UNSC 688, which was what authorized OPC.

[link|http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/provide_comfort.htm|http://www.fas.org/m...ovide_comfort.htm]
The massive defeat of the Iraqi military machine tempted the Iraqi Kurds to revolt against the Baghdad regime. Encouraged by American radio broadcasts to rise up against their \ufffddictator\ufffd, the Kurds of northern Iraq rebelled against a nominally defeated and certainly weakened Saddam Hussein in March of 1991. Shortly after the war ended, Kurdish rebels attacked disorganized Iraqi units and seized control of several towns in northern Iraq. From the town of Rania, this sedition spread quickly through the Kurdish north. Fear of being drawn into an Iraqi civil war and possible diplomatic repercussions precluded President Bush from committing US forces to support the Kurds. Within days Iraqi forces recovered and launched a ruthless counteroffensive including napalm and chemical attacks from helicopters. They quickly reclaimed lost territory and crushed the rebellion.

The round is described as a 122mm rocket warhead filled with Sarin. We know that the Iraqis possessed this particular weapon, and used it with G Nerve Agent.

[link|http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1992/92111600.html|http://bushlibrary.t...992/92111600.html]
In late September, the Chemical Destruction Group in residence at the Muthanna State Establishment destroyed the following items: 120 122mm rocket warheads; 350 122mm propellant grain; 153 122mm rocket motor tube assembly; 1335 liters of nerve agent (GB/GF); 13 al Hussein warheads; 228 liters of isopropyl alcohol; 4 500 gauge oil-filled bombs; 2 155mm oil-filled projectiles; 4 250 gauge oil-filled bombs; and 14 R400 aerial bombs. Destruction activity will continue for the next twelve months.

But I said this round had been on the surface for a while. It probably had not had its surface markings worn off in the month or so between the attacks that led to OPC, so there must have been chemical attacks on the Kurds of Northern Iraq years prior. We know that this is true:

[link|http://www.guardian.co.uk/The_Kurds/Story/0,2763,440396,00.html|http://www.guardian....63,440396,00.html]
1988 Iraq conducts "Anfal" campaign against rebel Kurdish areas, culminating in a chemical weapon attack on town of Halabjah, killing at least 5,000


We also know that it is not improbable that such a weapon could dud and be laying on the surface.

[link|http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950719/950719_68980092_92r.html|http://www.gulflink....68980092_92r.html]
DOI: (U) 911114

REQS: [ (b)(2) ]

SOURCE: A. (U) HURRIYET NEWSPAPER, 911114 (U), MASS
APPEAL/INDEPENDENT. CIRCULATION APPROXIMATELY
517,928. IN TURKISH.
B. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]

SUMMARY: (U) PRESS REPORTS OF AN UNSPECIFIED TYPE OF
CHEMICAL MUNITION WHICH WAS TRANSPORTED TO TURKEY FROM
IRAQ WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING ILLNESS TO 25 PEOPLE
WHEN IT WAS CUT OPEN IN A SCRAP DEALERS SHOP IS
CONFIRMED.

TEXT: 1. (U) ON 911114, SOURCE A REPORTED AN
INCIDENT WHERE 35 PEOPLE IN GAZIANTEP //GEOCOORD:
3705N/03721E// WERE REPORTEDLY POISONED WHEN AN
APPARENT CHEMICAL MUNITION BROUGHT FROM IRAQ WAS CUT
OPEN IN A SCRAP DEALERS SHOP. ACCORDING TO THE
[ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]THE CHEMICAL MUNITION
WAS BROUGHT INTO TURKEY BY TRUCK FROM IRAQ. THE [ (b)(1) sec
1.3(a)(4) ] SOURCE STATED THE MUNITION (NFI) ARRIVED IN TURKEY IN
A LOAD OF SCRAP METAL BOUGHT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN
IRAQ. THE GAZIANTEP SCRAP DEALER SAID THAT HE BOUGHT
THIS PARTICULAR ITEM OUT OF CURIOSITY.

2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ] REPLIED THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE ARTICLE WAS TRUE. ACCORDING TO ( (b)(1) sec 1.3 (a)(3) )
CONCERNING THE INCIDENT, 25 PEOPLE WERE TREATED AT A LOCAL
HOSPITAL FROM WHAT WAS APPARENTLY A CHEMICAL AGENT, WHICH WAS
RELEASED WHEN AN APPARENT IRAQI PRODUCED CHEMICAL ARTILLERY ROUND
WAS CUT OPEN. ( (b)(1) sec 1.3 (a)(3) ) SAID THAT THE ITEM
APPEARED TO BE VERY OLD, HAD NO NUMBERS OR OTHER MARKINGS AND WAS
IN A HIGHLY DETERIORATED CONDITION
. ACCORDING TO ( (b)(1) sec
1.3 (a) (3) ) A SCRAP DEALER EITHER PICKED UP OR PURCHASED THE
ITEM FROM AN IRAQI SCRAP DEALER NEAR OR IN THE MOSUL AREA.
THE TURKISH PURCHASER COULD NOT REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE
HE ACQUIRED THE ITEM. AT THIS POINT ( (b)(1) sec 1.3 (a)(3)
) SAID THAT THE TURKISH PURCHASER WAS APPARENTLY EVASIVE AS TO
WHERE AND HOW HE ACQUIRED A CHEMICAL MUNITION.
[ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(3) ] SAID THAT ALL 25 PEOPLE EFFECTED BY
THE AGENT WERE TREATED AT A LOCAL HOSPITAL AND RELEASED AFTER A
SHORT PERIOD OF OBSERVATION AND SUFFERED NO LONG TERM
ILL EFFECTS. ASKED IF [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ] HAD MADE ANY
DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE OF AGENT OR HAD ANY INFORMATION WHICH
WOULD FURTHER IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF MUNITION. [ (b)(7)(D) ]
STATED THAT DUE TO THE SHORT TERM EFFECT OF THE AGENT, [
(b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ] THEN STATED THAT DUE TO THE AGE AND
HIGHLY DETERIORATED STATE OF THE OBJECT, WHATEVER AGENT WAS
PRESENT WAS PROBABLY APPROACHING AN INERT STATE. [ (b)(1) sec
1.3(a)(4) ].

Hmmmmm. That sounds kind of familiar. Note also that this is a declassified report.

Now, as to how the munition in the story was handled. EOD folks do, as a matter of SOP, X-ray munitions in the field. You can read about an EOD operation in Nigeria right here:

[link|http://www.army.mil/soldiers/aug2002/pdfs/ammunition.pdf|http://www.army.mil/...fs/ammunition.pdf]

If you read through the article, you will find this paragraph:
The heat and humidity also affect the equipment. Explosive ordnance disposal soldiers use portable X-ray machines to assess the stability of munitions. Binoculars and digital cameras, for documenting various types of rounds, are all affected by condensation, 1SG Lee added.

So, finding an old munition and using a portable X-ray on it in the field looks a lot like it must be EOD SOP - I mean here is this 1SG being published in Soldiers magazine - he probably isn't going to tell some reporter he is not following SOP, right? (BTW, the unit profiled in that article is the 720th EOD out of Mannheim - more about them later).

So, now onto OPC. It was different, absolutely, from ODS. First, it was in Northern Iraq, not Southern, and it was under the umbrella of a different UNSC resolution. It was a completely different type of organization. Let's look at the units deployed there. You can find a list here:

[link|http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/92-6/appxb.htm|http://call.army.mil...rs/92-6/appxb.htm]

First, you will see on that list 3/325 ABCT and E/502d Aviation, two units that I said had deployed to OPC. You will also see in JTF Alpha the 10 SFG. They comprised the security portion of the CTF that was OPC. Here is how that came about:

[link|http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/provide_comfort.htm|http://www.globalsec...ovide_comfort.htm]
Two subordinate joint task forces (JTFs) were also established to facilitate the mission. JTF \ufffdAlpha\ufffd spread throughout the mountains of southeast Turkey, headquartered in Silopi, was responsible for alleviating the dying and suffering while stabilizing the situation. Commanded by BG Richard Potter, USA, JTF Alpha was composed primarily of the 10th Special Forces (SF) Group. The second component, JTF \ufffdBravo\ufffd, centered on the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) commanded by MG Jay Garner, USA. Its mission was to prepare the town of Zakho, in northern Iraq, for the incoming Kurds and facilitate their eventual transfer back to their homes. An important part of this mission was the \ufffdseamless\ufffd transfer of responsibility over to NGOs.
So again, we have another element of the story that we know to be true - that SF was all over Northern Iraq during OPC. You can also see in the JTF Alpha list of units the 72D EOD. This unit was stationed in Mannheim, Germany, and has since been redesignated the 720th EOD CO that is featured in the Soldiers article. Just an interesting aside, the commander of the 22d was a 1LT who I went to EOD school with - she had previously been the "second officer" at the 19th, in Vicenza, and transferred to the 72d to take command - that left the slot at the 19th for me to take as Operations Officer (the MTOE change occurred in the same timeframe.) The 16th EOD is NOT on the list, but there is a 16th CHEM DET. I suspect that this is a misidentification, as near as I can tell, there were no Chem units in 21st TAACOM - but 16th EOD was a 21st TAACOM unit. (But it is difficult to tell because there have been significant realignments since then, and the old unit stuff wasn't on the Net, it being 1991 and all.) Even if there really was a 16th CHEM, and it isn't a typo, it still isn't proof that the 16th EOD wasn't there, because this list is not comprehensive. There are Navy and Air Force EOD units that were part of OPC that are not listed, either. You can google them up just fine - put in EOD Operation Provide Comfort. You might get this link:

[link|http://www.uxocoe.brtrc.com/TechnicalReps/misc8.htm|http://www.uxocoe.br...calReps/misc8.htm]

Scroll down a bit, and you'll find this paragraph:
When the multi-national coalition that defeated Saddam Hussein turned its attention to Operation Provide Comfort to help Kurdish refugees in northern Iraq, extensive munitions caches, land mines, and other unexploded ordnance hindered humanitarian efforts. In May 1991 two Navy EOD techs from the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and two Marine Corps EOD techs destroyed some 20,000 ordnance items with a net explosive weight of more than 66,000 pounds.
Those units are not on the list, either.

Now you also posit that this cannot be true because it would require the whole of the command of OPC to be "in on the conspiracy." Because, according to SOP, they would all be informed because of the NBC reporting system. Now come on Sarge, what is an NBC 1 report for? You know. In case of an NBC attack. Given the age and condition of the munition, this was not an NBC attack. An EOD team that has located something like this would not call it in under the NBC reporting system, though it would obviously be reported to the Area Commander, who has a lot of latitude over what to do. In this case, the Area Commander would have been someone from 10th SFG - who will have even more latitude over what to do than someone from non-Special Forces, because the SF teams are highly autonomous.

This would not be a "chemical incident" so much as a technical intelligence mission. At that point, different procedures obtain. For example, in a conventional munition, the preferred render safe procedure may involve smashing the fuse to insure it can't set off the round. For tech intel, the requirement to keep the fuse intact for intel purposes may override the preferred RSP method, so a different procedure (yes, a different procedure for a "special" case) is used.

It is not unusual for EOD folks to work in "special" circumstances on tech intel missions. I know several techs who have been given orders like "show up at the airfield, wear civilian clothes, do not bring your ID" and they board an aircraft, fly several hours, get off, ID an item, make sure it is in a safe condition, and get back on, returning back home not knowing where they had travelled. I know you don't believe that either, but it happens with the Ft. Bragg EOD unit a lot. They are right there with SOCOM, and right by the airfield.

So, finally, we are left with the mysterious "Man in Black." Again, we have an element of the story that we know absolutely occurs - SF teams working with people from the intelligence community who are in non-standard uniforms. We have seen the video of Johnny "Mike" Spann in Mazar i Sharif in blue jeans in the middle of a firefight. I am quite sure that the SF teams working with Spann did not know his full (real) name, or where he really came from, or any of that. They knew what they were meant to know - that he was a US intelligence operator and they were to assist him.

Your argument, aside from the ridiculous notion that I am a pair of people, a teenager working in tandem with his uncle - who actually does have military experience, trying to pull some hoax over on you, is that none of the things that I related in my story could have happened, and yet, I have provided you with your documentation and substantiation for individual elements of the story that you claim to be against EOD SOP, even though you were never actually EOD.

Seeing how dismissive you are of the evidence I provided that I was in the Army, held the positions I said I did, and served when I said I did, I doubt you'll find any of this convincing. But there it is.

[link|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com|http://blastersblog.blogspot.com]
New dont annoy Brandi with facts he has a nervous disposition :)
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Great. I'm asking a 14 yo to prove something.
What was I thinking?

Silly, I know. I answer the questions. You just don't choose to read them, or you attack things that I did not actually write. So anyway, I hope you find this clear enough.
It's called a "link". If you make that claim, back it up.

Rest assured, I am not telling a lie.
Oh. Great. Maybe you didn't understand my message [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=79537|here]. The part where I said: "Your story is a LIE!"

And you counter that with "Rest assured, I am not telling a lie." I guess they're not covering "English" until your senior year? I tell you that you're story is a lie and you respond with "Rest assured, I am not telling a lie."

Or maybe they don't cover "logic" at all in the public school you're at.

Read the OTHER forums here.
Learn what "substantiation" is.
Learn what "proof" is.
Then come back.

Okay, let's break this down. First, no, I didn't personally witness it.
So, you didn't witness it. But you say it happened.

Therefore, you have physical evidence that it happened, right?
Now of course I have no physical evidence that it occured
Okay, you didn't see it and there is no physical evidence that it happened.

Well, then, it must have been something that was REPORTED to higher command so at least there's SOME record of it, right?

No.

Well, then, at least it happened in accordance with established procedures, right?

No.

He is someone who I trust, explicitly, and implicitly.
Look up "Nigerian scam" sometime. Trusting someone else means....

That you trust someone else.

If they aren't trustworthy, that makes YOU "gullible".

So, your substantiation consists of the word of an anonymous poster that he heard from another anonymous person that something very unusual occured.

[link|http://www.abduct.com/|Just like this.]

As for your other references.......
#1. Chemical usage by Iraq against the Kurds:
Okay, now find where I said that Iraq did not use chemical weapons against the Kurds. Go ahead. In the future, try paying a bit more attention to what I'm posting.

#2. Chemical munitions used by Iraq:
Okay, now find where I said that Iraq did not use chemical munitions. Go ahead. In the future, try paying a bit more attention to what I'm posting.

#3. Chemical usage by Iraq:
Okay, now find where I said that Iraq did not use chemical munitions. Go ahead. In the future, try paying a bit more attention to what I'm posting.

#4. Declassified report:
Hmmm, a "report". Chemical munitions were found and a REPORT was generated. Isn't that according to SOP? A "report" is filed? But in YOUR story, "it never happened". No report. Which is why I say that your story is a lie.

#5. PDF file with nice, colour picture:
Hmmm, definately more than ONE person in that picture. Which was what you implied (is that too soft of a word?) in your original story. "He" did this. "He" did that. "He" decon'ed "himself". Again, that article supports my position that your story contains elements that would NOT happen. Of course, you later added a second person. And then you forgot about him again. And it took me quoting the reference materials for you to even think about adding that second person (who seems to do NOTHING in your story, not even help his buddy with decontamination).

#6. Listing of units.
Yep. I see the units you mentioned. I also see the 16th Chemical detachment. In your story, chemical support was not provided. The individual had to decon himself and the area by himself. Utilizing materials that he would not, normally, be issued.

#7. Another article on JTFPC.
"The 16th EOD is NOT on the list, but there is a 16th CHEM DET. I suspect that this is a misidentification, as near as I can tell, there were no Chem units in 21st TAACOM - but 16th EOD was a 21st TAACOM unit." Possibly. If the 21st TAACOM was based out of K-Town, the 10th Chemical Company was assigned to them. Here's what google [link|http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:Qlcm9xjT0k0C:www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/63-4/CH2.PDF+21+taacom+chemical&hl=en&ie=UTF-8|says]. Search for "NBC".

#8. Another article.
"Now you also posit that this cannot be true because it would require the whole of the command of OPC to be "in on the conspiracy."" Incorrect. I never said there was a conspiracy to NOT reveal which units were deployed where. The "conspiracy" I refered to was the one to cover up the finding of the chemical munition you claim was found. The "conspiracy" that resulted in no reports being filed. The "conspiracy" that resulted in the phrase "this never happened". The "conspiracy" that let a supposedly experienced soldier to be working alone at the munition site (well, there was another person there, but he did not do anything). That is the "conspiracy" that I speak of. In the future, try paying a bit more attention to what I'm posting.

Now you also posit that this cannot be true because it would require the whole of the command of OPC to be "in on the conspiracy." Because, according to SOP, they would all be informed because of the NBC reporting system. Now come on Sarge, what is an NBC 1 report for? You know. In case of an NBC attack.
An NBC 4 report is used to report an area of contamination. This would be filed when the agent was detected.
An NBC 5 report is used to report the closure of a decontamination site.
Note how I provide clear, specific information. Also note the level of detail contained within that information.

An EOD team that has located something like this would not call it in under the NBC reporting system, though it would obviously be reported to the Area Commander, who has a lot of latitude over what to do.
That is supposing that an NBC team had not been deployed with the EOD team. If one had, the NBC team would be reporting. Either way, the information would be reported to the commander (as I first referenced in the FM's I linked to). In your story, no such report was mentioned. In your story, the Man-In-Black said "this never happened". In your story, the soldier took his orders from the Man-In-Black and violated SOP on reporting the incident to the commander.

In this case, the Area Commander would have been someone from 10th SFG - who will have even more latitude over what to do than someone from non-Special Forces, because the SF teams are highly autonomous.
And this Special Forces commander did not want to know about the presence of chemical munitions in his AO? Look up the phrase "Humans are more important than hardware". That seems like a strange attitude for a Special Forces commander to take. If it had been me, I'd have quickly informed my troops that such munitions had been located and to report any suspected new instances to HQ for appropriate handling. But "this never happened". Very curious.

This would not be a "chemical incident" so much as a technical intelligence mission. At that point, different procedures obtain.
Incorrect. The "technical intelligence" would be performed in conjunction with the standard chemical operations. The round would have been secured and transported back to the Intelligence asset. You are probably not aware, but there were injuries and deaths from US soldiers picking up unexploded munitions in the Gulf War.

For example, in a conventional munition, the preferred render safe procedure may involve smashing the fuse to insure it can't set off the round. For tech intel, the requirement to keep the fuse intact for intel purposes may override the preferred RSP method, so a different procedure (yes, a different procedure for a "special" case) is used.
Ah, another "you can roll your sleeves a different way so none of the FM's apply". What you do not understand is that there are multiple options for different scenarios. But there are certain requirements that are common to all scenarios. You focus on the variables, and claim there are no standards. Incorrect.

It is not unusual for EOD folks to work in "special" circumstances on tech intel missions.
Ah, yes. Another case where you personally have heard stories about how other things happened to other people. I believe I have already stated the value I place on such third hand "substantiation".

So, finally, we are left with the mysterious "Man in Black." Again, we have an element of the story that we know absolutely occurs - SF teams working with people from the intelligence community who are in non-standard uniforms.
So, we have sent people into space. And things fall from space. Therefore, space aliens abduct people. No. This is an instance where you're trying to change your original story. In your original story, you focused on the lack of insignia/nametags, implying that this was some "unidentified" individual. Later, once I questioned WHY your soldier would turn over such a munition to an "unidentified" individual, you changed your story so that he was "identified". He just wasn't wearing such on his uniform.

And, when he say "this never happened", I questioned why your soldier would take such an order from such a person and NOT report the incident to his commander (as SOP would require). You said that you didn't KNOW if such a report had been filed.

But if such a report had been filed (complete with the name of the "unidentified" individual), then the statement "this never happened" would be meaningless because an offical report would have been filed.

Unless the "unindentified" individual also told the commander that "this never happened".

In which case...... conspiracy.

And so your story is a lie.

Your argument, aside from the ridiculous notion that I am a pair of people, a teenager working in tandem with his uncle - who actually does have military experience, trying to pull some hoax over on you, is that none of the things that I related in my story could have happened, and yet, I have provided you with your documentation and substantiation for individual elements of the story that you claim to be against EOD SOP, even though you were never actually EOD.
No. You are a teenager who is digging through his uncle's possessions while reciting the war stories told to him by his uncle.

No, not that NONE of the things you claim could have happened. Remember my example of rolling a 7? It can happen. But rolling a 7 on 100 throws? No. It isn't that ONE item in your story is "special". It is that EVERY item in your story is "special". In the future, try paying a bit more attention to what I'm posting.

No, you have NOT provided ANY substantiation for the elements of your story. The GENERAL items are correct. The US army WAS over in Iraq and chemical munitions HAD been used in the past. Beyond that, NOTHING about your story is substantiated. Nothing.

The articles you post all support MY position that YOUR story is NOT the way that the units in those articles operate.

Seeing how dismissive you are of the evidence I provided that I was in the Army, held the positions I said I did, and served when I said I did, I doubt you'll find any of this convincing. But there it is.
You claim 4 years at Westpoint (a school that trains career army officers) and further years in the army in a job that COULD bring you into direct contact with chemical munitions. Yet your knowledge on reporting of such is limited to what anyone could pick up off the Internet (an NBC 1 report). Your knowledge of decon SOP should you come in contact with such is similarly limited. Your original story implies that ONE soldier was sent to deal with the munition whereas EOD SOP would contradict that (and you later "corrected" your story to say there was another soldier there, he just didn't do anything to help his fellow EOD soldier).

And your rationalization for these oddities is that........

Commanders are authorized to specify different wear of the uniform than 670-1 states.

But, if you WERE an officer in the army, you'd know that such additions to 670-1 are formally filed and signed by the commander.

As for shooting other people in your unit, that is covered under the UCMJ. And you didn't know that?

Hmmmmm........
New I thought you already figured out I was 36?
The part where I said: "Your story is a LIE!"

And you counter that with "Rest assured, I am not telling a lie." I guess they're not covering "English" until your senior year? I tell you that you're story is a lie and you respond with "Rest assured, I am not telling a lie."
Wow, you've got issues. You say I am lying. I say I am not lying. I fail to see the lack of understanding or logic in that exchange.
So, you didn't witness it. But you say it happened.
Lots of things happen that I don't witness. I really am not that important to the workings of the universe. Things don't require my oversight or permission to happen.
Therefore, you have physical evidence that it happened, right?
I don't have any physical evidence that I saw Secretary of State James Baker's underwear, either, but I did. I don't have any physical evidence of where I attended school in 6th grade, either, but I went. Besides, if I had physical evidence, what would you say about it? That I borrowed it from my uncle or some crap, right? Because I do have physical evidence that I attended West Point, was commissioned an officer, attended EOD school, was assigned to both EOD units in USASETAF - and you don't call that substantiation.
Well, then, it must have been something that was REPORTED to higher command so at least there's SOME record of it, right?
Quite possibly there is some record of it. But it isn't on the internet. I posted an account of a simliar situation that had come from a public source - a Turkish newspaper. That document had been declassified. So if that account was classified, then I would expect that intelligence operatives taking control of a chemical warhead in the same area, at the same time would also be a classified report. And if it hasn't been declassified, neither you nor I are going to Google that up.
Well, then, at least it happened in accordance with established procedures, right?
For the most part, yes.
Look up "Nigerian scam" sometime. Trusting someone else means....

That you trust someone else.

If they aren't trustworthy, that makes YOU "gullible".
Ooookay then. You know how the Nigerian scam works, right? You get a random email from someone you don't know. If you believe that, right, you are gullible. This story was related to me by someone I worked with closely, someone who I literally entrusted my life to. Now, are you telling me that my first sergeant was untrustworthy? I know differently.
As for your other references.......
Suddenly, links are not substantiation. What I provided was evidence that the conditions that I stated existed. Army EOD in Northern Iraq. Working with SF. Finding an old round without markings or identification. Use of portable X-ray on said munition. That there were chemical rounds reported in the area. That SF work with intelligence operatives in non-standard uniforms who collect intellgence material.

You arguments are:

1. The conditions you describe could not have existed. And yet, there they are.

2. "That's not what the FM says." I still don't see how you can rely on a manual of policy and procedure and use it to state a fact. The only thing that a manual of policy and procedure can be used to substantiate as FACT is the existence of said policy and procedure.
You are probably not aware, but there were injuries and deaths from US soldiers picking up unexploded munitions in the Gulf War.

I know that way better than you. When I taught EORA and explosive safety classes, the FACT that US sustained more casualties from UXO incidents following the Gulf War than we did in actual combat played prominently in my training.

Look, this has been fun, but there is no way that you will be persuaded of the truth at this point, given the emotional and face investment you have in your vehement denouncement of me and the story I have related. You would look awfully foolish climbing back down after all of that.

So I will leave it at that. I am leaving with my wife and son for a trip to visit some friends (a family we were in Italy with - in the Army), and can't keep playing your little game.

I supsect those who are reasonable, and have less ego invested, will read our exchange and make their own decisions.

Don't forget your meds.

Good day.







New That's why I said they might not cover logic at your school.
Wow, you've got issues. You say I am lying. I say I am not lying. I fail to see the lack of understanding or logic in that exchange.
There isn't a lack of understanding. You're stating your position and I'm stating mine.

Now, the NEXT part is to SUBSTANTIATE that position.

You claim to have HOW many years of post-high school education?

Lots of things happen that I don't witness. I really am not that important to the workings of the universe. Things don't require my oversight or permission to happen.
Exactly. I'd expect that kind of "logic" from a 14 year old. I wasn't talking about your permission. I was talking about your verification of such.

I don't have any physical evidence that I saw Secretary of State James Baker's underwear, either, but I did.
Is it possible for you to stay on topic?

Besides, if I had physical evidence, what would you say about it?
Hmmmm, let's see. Someone claims to have been abducted by aliens but has no physical evidence to support his claim because government agents took it from him.

You'd accept that claim.

I would not.

Now, suppose someone claimed to have been abducted by aliens and had a working space ship to prove it.

You'd accept that claim.

I would accept that claim.

Do you have a problem with "comprehension"?

The whole point is that your story has a series of unlikely occurances happening and the proof that they happened is taken by a secret agent.

Here's your task for today, post the definitions of the words "comprehension" and "substantiation".

Because I do have physical evidence that I attended West Point, was commissioned an officer, attended EOD school, was assigned to both EOD units in USASETAF - and you don't call that substantiation.
Again, as I posted earlier, if I claim to have been working on a secret underground submarine base in Arizona, and my only "proof" that I was was my DD214 showing I left the Marines.......

No, that is NOT substantiation for your story.

You'll understand why when you complete the task I've assigned you.

Quite possibly there is some record of it.
No. "some record of it" could mean "some record of it in the files of the secret government agency". Don't try to pull that bullshit with me.

If it happened, there'd be a record of at command.

But that would contradict the "it never happened" line.

I posted an account of a simliar situation that had come from a public source - a Turkish newspaper.
Again, (I'll see how long it takes you to post the definition for "comprehension") that supports MY case because NO ONE from a secret government agency was trying to clamp down on THAT information.

But it was very similar to the case YOU posted. Except for the massive violations required in your story.

So if that account was classified, then I would expect that intelligence operatives taking control of a chemical warhead in the same area, at the same time would also be a classified report.
Hmmm, I don't suppose telling you to read that report again will do much. You're still having problems with this "comprehension" thing.

It isn't that the account was classified. It is the presence of the secret government agent telling your soldier that "this never happened" and your soldier taking orders from that agent and violating SOP by not reporting it to his commander.

You know how the Nigerian scam works, right? You get a random email from someone you don't know. If you believe that, right, you are gullible. This story was related to me by someone I worked with closely, someone who I literally entrusted my life to. Now, are you telling me that my first sergeant was untrustworthy? I know differently.
Again, the "comprehension" thing. No. You BELIEVE your "first sergeant" was trustworthy. This gets even better. A first sergeant? That's a LOT of years in the army.

Suddenly, links are not substantiation.
So, I post a reference from a text on physics. I claim that is substantiation.

You post a reference from a Sgt. Rock comic book. Then you cry when I say that your reference isn't accurate.

Again, "comprehension". Try reading the other forums and learning what "substantiation" is.

Oh, I'm sorry. You've had 4 years of "West Point". I guess they never got around to explaining that to you.

You're 36 years old with 4 years of "West Point" and I've been over this multiple times and you STILL don't understand the concept of "substantiation"?

Yeah. Right.

Army EOD in Northern Iraq.
I never said there weren't. But that wasn't your story. Your story was the Man-In-Black taking a chemical munition from your "first sergeant" and telling him "this never happened". I'll call this #1.

Working with SF.
Again, #1.

Finding an old round without markings or identification.
#1.

That there were chemical rounds reported in the area.
#1.

That SF work with intelligence operatives in non-standard uniforms who collect intellgence material.
Is that the best attempt you have? "intellgence material"? That can be anything from jets to rumours. And the claim was that your "first sergeant" had a chemical munition taken from him by a Man-In-Black.

Again, try to address the points, not keep repeating generalized "facts".

1. The conditions you describe could not have existed. And yet, there they are.
No. I have never said that the US army was not in Iraq nor that Iraq did not use chemical munitions. This has been the ONLY information you have provided. Information that is NOT in question.

2. "That's not what the FM says." I still don't see how you can rely on a manual of policy and procedure and use it to state a fact.
This coming from someone who thinks a typo on a set of orders means that the FM's aren't being followed. No. You'll never see it.

I know that way better than you. When I taught EORA and explosive safety classes, the FACT that US sustained more casualties from UXO incidents following the Gulf War than we did in actual combat played prominently in my training.
And yet you'll believe that a command would cover up the presence of even MORE deadly munitions?

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

Look, this has been fun, but there is no way that you will be persuaded of the truth at this point, given the emotional and face investment you have in your vehement denouncement of me and the story I have related.
Let's skip "truth" and just stick to "facts". Facts are so much easier to determine.

In an ACTUAL situation such as you had described.
1. Unknown munition spotted.
2. Incident reported to command.
3. EOD team (2 or more people) are sent to investigate.
4. EOD believes chemical agent may be present.
5. Information is reported to command.
6. NBC team deployed with decon gear and replacement suits/filters.
7. NBC team sets up outside perimeter.
8. EOD does whatever EOD does and confirms chemical agent.
9. NBC team reports confirmed chemical agent.
10. NBC team contains contamination.
11. EOD stabilizes and prepares munition for transportation.
12. HQ issues instructions to OIC for transportation of munition.
13. Munition is handed over for transportation.
14. NBC decons EOD personel and site.
15. NBC decons NBC.
16. NBC marks site and closure report is sent.
17. HQ turns munition over to intelligence assets to determine whatever they can about it.
18. Intelligence reports back to HQ with whatever they can find.
19. HQ issues warnings about unexploded chemical munitions.

And that is how it would go.

And that is how the other references to the other EOD operations depict it.

Simple.

No strange circumstances.
No single person on site doing all the work.
No "unidentified" Men-In-Black.
No "this never happened".
No secrecy.

I've already linked to the specific portions of the specific FM's that would cover this situation. It's already been thought of, planned for, documented and included in the NBC training program.

Again, no "special" circumstances needed. No single "first sergeant" being sent alone to do all the work. No "unidentified" CIA agents telling the single "first sergeant" that "this never happened".

Instead, you have lots of people who know about it (and are ready to handle emergencies that arise) and lots of reports going back and forth and even warnings to uninvolved troops in the same AO.
New Taint no such thing...
...as an Ex-Marine.... Former-Marine... yes...

Semantic, Yes... but it's an IMPORTANT one.

And DON'T You forget it... Buster!

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]   [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]
[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]
Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.html|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints.
New Hey, I'm an ex-Marine and that's how we
refered to them in my special, secret unit.
New OH... YEAH... I know the UNIT you are talking about...
I just can't tell it to you over these "public" airwaves...

I'll tell you those services they provide are VALUABLE... wouldn't know what to do about the grout-lines.... errr... Krout-Lines.... errr Germany Problems... err... Foreign relation *issues*....

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]   [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]
[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]
Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.html|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints.
New put yer unit away
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Can't quite make out that watch.
Could we run it through some histogram EQ?
"Going to a march organized by Communists doesn't make you a Communist, any more than going to a march organized by Nazis makes you a Nazi." - Glenn Reynolds
CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere!
Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New Re: Can't quite make out that watch.
Looks like this:

[link|http://www.luminoxshop.com/kjjk.html|http://www.luminoxshop.com/kjjk.html]

Gift from the wife.

I like tritium.
New Gift from the wife?
Dang. Woulda been nice to think that Brandioch was getting verbally pummeled by a Seal. Though I suppose that would be better than he deserves.
"Going to a march organized by Communists doesn't make you a Communist, any more than going to a march organized by Nazis makes you a Nazi." - Glenn Reynolds
CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere!
Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New Re: Gift from the wife?
Well, my next door neighbor is a SEAL. But in the German Navy.

Don't suppose he'd believe that, either.

Reminds me, I need to call him and bum some Hefeweissens off of him - he gets them direct through his version of the shoppette.
New So is he as tough as the American version?
Our Navy SEALs risk internal injury just riding around in those boats. From the G forces.
"Going to a march organized by Communists doesn't make you a Communist, any more than going to a march organized by Nazis makes you a Nazi." - Glenn Reynolds
CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere!
Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New Re: So is he as tough as the American version?
I suppose if you ask him, he would say tougher.

New I suppose he would.
Would you believe him?
"Going to a march organized by Communists doesn't make you a Communist, any more than going to a march organized by Nazis makes you a Nazi." - Glenn Reynolds
CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere!
Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
     Just for you, Brandioch - (blaster) - (40)
         I feel "special". - (Brandioch) - (2)
             Re: I feel "special". - (blaster) - (1)
                 there is 1 or 2 people around here that use $MS not many -NT - (boxley)
         Not to bust in, but it's busted for me too. - (Another Scott) - (2)
             Re: Not to bust in, but it's busted for me too. - (blaster) - (1)
                 anarchy in action :-) -NT - (boxley)
         Re: Just for you, Brandioch - again - (blaster) - (26)
             *snicker* -NT - (admin)
             hm, no separation papers, so sharing classified oer the net? - (boxley) - (1)
                 Nah - (blaster)
             You seem awfully quiet... -NT - (blaster) - (5)
                 Brandioch is on the west coast - (boxley) - (3)
                     Right shifted posts? -NT - (blaster) - (2)
                         arguments between 2 posters shift to the right -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                             Re: arguments between 2 posters shift to the right - (blaster)
                 Could have predicted the response. - (bepatient)
             I've been "Own3d"? - (Brandioch) - (16)
                 Re: I've been "Own3d"? - (blaster) - (11)
                     Now you're claiming to be from Westpoint? - (Brandioch) - (10)
                         Now who's the conspiracy theorist? - (blaster) - (9)
                             Huh? - (Brandioch) - (8)
                                 Yep. - (blaster) - (7)
                                     You do seem to have a problem with replies. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                         On your last line - (boxley)
                                         No, you do! - (blaster) - (4)
                                             dont annoy Brandi with facts he has a nervous disposition :) -NT - (boxley)
                                             Great. I'm asking a 14 yo to prove something. - (Brandioch) - (2)
                                                 I thought you already figured out I was 36? - (blaster) - (1)
                                                     That's why I said they might not cover logic at your school. - (Brandioch)
                 Taint no such thing... - (folkert) - (3)
                     Hey, I'm an ex-Marine and that's how we - (Brandioch) - (2)
                         OH... YEAH... I know the UNIT you are talking about... - (folkert)
                         put yer unit away -NT - (boxley)
         Can't quite make out that watch. - (marlowe) - (6)
             Re: Can't quite make out that watch. - (blaster) - (5)
                 Gift from the wife? - (marlowe) - (4)
                     Re: Gift from the wife? - (blaster) - (3)
                         So is he as tough as the American version? - (marlowe) - (2)
                             Re: So is he as tough as the American version? - (blaster) - (1)
                                 I suppose he would. - (marlowe)

Only Olaf Stapledon ever succeeded on this kind of scale, and Olaf Stapledon is dead.
155 ms