Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:56:04 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>No Alan I ask a serious question. Did you?
>
>
>>The only thing that bothers me is the fact that atrocities did take
>>place; yet GOP thinks discussions of such a subject is unpatriotic.
>
>
> Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
> And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
> But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
> wide spread.
> Pan Ohco

And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:56:04 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>No Alan I ask a serious question. Did you?
>
>
>>The only thing that bothers me is the fact that atrocities did take
>>place; yet GOP thinks discussions of such a subject is unpatriotic.
>
>
> Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
> And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
> But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
> wide spread.
> Pan Ohco

And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco > wrote:

> President Bush has denounced all 527 group ads.

Only because he's been the brunt of some of those groups' ads.
This is yet another area where Bush gets away with flip flopping.
Bush was the one who legalized those 527 groups in the first place
when he approved the McCain-Finegold campaign finance reform bill,
and now he doesn't like them. Boo hoo.

Pan Ohco > wrote:

> President Bush has denounced all 527 group ads.

Only because he's been the brunt of some of those groups' ads.
This is yet another area where Bush gets away with flip flopping.
Bush was the one who legalized those 527 groups in the first place
when he approved the McCain-Finegold campaign finance reform bill,
and now he doesn't like them. Boo hoo.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 2 Sep 2004 16:33:36 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I must admit that you are the first Viet Nam vet that I have
>>> talked to, that has listed this extensive amount of savage
>>> action.
>>>
>>> In fact most have said that the only place they saw an ear on a
>>> necklace was in "Apocalypse Now"
>>
>>"Most" have said? Got a cite on that? Is this one of those
>>"everybody knows" things?
>
> Most was in reference to those that I have spoken to.

So, you can't substantiate it. In fact, ears were a very popular
item, because they were in line with the US policy of reporting Body
Count (or BC). You might want to peruse the transcripts of the
Dellums Committee hearings on War Crimes in Vietnam (1971).

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm

I think you'll be enlightened. Of course, you'll evade the issue by
making some spurious claim that Dellums was a dove or a commie agent
or something like that. You'll refuse, as usual, to taint your views
with the introduction of solid but contradictory facts.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 2 Sep 2004 16:33:36 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I must admit that you are the first Viet Nam vet that I have
>>> talked to, that has listed this extensive amount of savage
>>> action.
>>>
>>> In fact most have said that the only place they saw an ear on a
>>> necklace was in "Apocalypse Now"
>>
>>"Most" have said? Got a cite on that? Is this one of those
>>"everybody knows" things?
>
> Most was in reference to those that I have spoken to.

So, you can't substantiate it. In fact, ears were a very popular
item, because they were in line with the US policy of reporting Body
Count (or BC). You might want to peruse the transcripts of the
Dellums Committee hearings on War Crimes in Vietnam (1971).

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm

I think you'll be enlightened. Of course, you'll evade the issue by
making some spurious claim that Dellums was a dove or a commie agent
or something like that. You'll refuse, as usual, to taint your views
with the introduction of solid but contradictory facts.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

On 2 Sep 2004 20:45:31 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> And President Bush has released his records.
>> Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........
>
>If he does, will you vote for him?

Probably not
Pan Ohco

On 2 Sep 2004 20:45:31 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> And President Bush has released his records.
>> Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........
>
>If he does, will you vote for him?

Probably not
Pan Ohco

On 2 Sep 2004 21:05:08 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>Ok, so according to you, I should be the same here as I am in my
>daily routine. I have no right to be brasher or more abrasive. I
>have no right to be more direct and less diplomatic. Are you aware
>that this is NOT a peer review group, but rather an informal
>discussion between consenting adults?

Oh I'M sorry. I assumed that you were the same off line as on line.
And yes you do have the right.
Not very ethical, but you have the right.

>>>> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.
>>>
>>>I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss
>>>it intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.
>>
>> How about you read "Deliver us from evil" and if you discuss it
>> intelligently , I will read the manifesto.
>
>No no no...you were challenged first.

No actually you did when you "Put the manifesto on my reading list"

>You either accept or reject,
>those are your options. If you accept, then we will proceed to the
>point where I am satisfied that you understand the Manifesto

Again your arrogance is showing. You will decide if I understand
something?

>(I'll be
>gentle on your bruised USAian psyche)

Another slight.

>and then we pass on to step two
>which I have agreed to do upon your completion of the task.

Oh and when did I agree to these rules, that you decided upon

> If you
>reject it, the discussion stops there, but you lose the right to use
>the word commie or to make any disparaging remarks about Karl Marx in
>the future.

I don't think so. Once again I didn't agree to these rules. And I have
the right to call him nuts.

>>> Tit for tat,
>>>except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft
>>>refuted explanation provided by INGSOC
>> What is INGSOC?

> it refers to the government in 1984 (INGSOC = English
>Socialism), but generally to any government that gets too big for its
>britches. Bush and his coven of cronies are a manifestation of
>INGSOC. Don't tell me you never read 1984...

Yes I have, I read it when it was still futuristic. But I see you
just got around to reading it.
Oh by the way I've read the Manifesto about 40 years ago. But if you
read the book I suggested, and can discuss it intelligently,( I'll
decide if you understand it) I'll reread the Manifesto.

Pan Ohco

On 2 Sep 2004 21:05:08 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>Ok, so according to you, I should be the same here as I am in my
>daily routine. I have no right to be brasher or more abrasive. I
>have no right to be more direct and less diplomatic. Are you aware
>that this is NOT a peer review group, but rather an informal
>discussion between consenting adults?

Oh I'M sorry. I assumed that you were the same off line as on line.
And yes you do have the right.
Not very ethical, but you have the right.

>>>> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.
>>>
>>>I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss
>>>it intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.
>>
>> How about you read "Deliver us from evil" and if you discuss it
>> intelligently , I will read the manifesto.
>
>No no no...you were challenged first.

No actually you did when you "Put the manifesto on my reading list"

>You either accept or reject,
>those are your options. If you accept, then we will proceed to the
>point where I am satisfied that you understand the Manifesto

Again your arrogance is showing. You will decide if I understand
something?

>(I'll be
>gentle on your bruised USAian psyche)

Another slight.

>and then we pass on to step two
>which I have agreed to do upon your completion of the task.

Oh and when did I agree to these rules, that you decided upon

> If you
>reject it, the discussion stops there, but you lose the right to use
>the word commie or to make any disparaging remarks about Karl Marx in
>the future.

I don't think so. Once again I didn't agree to these rules. And I have
the right to call him nuts.

>>> Tit for tat,
>>>except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft
>>>refuted explanation provided by INGSOC
>> What is INGSOC?

> it refers to the government in 1984 (INGSOC = English
>Socialism), but generally to any government that gets too big for its
>britches. Bush and his coven of cronies are a manifestation of
>INGSOC. Don't tell me you never read 1984...

Yes I have, I read it when it was still futuristic. But I see you
just got around to reading it.
Oh by the way I've read the Manifesto about 40 years ago. But if you
read the book I suggested, and can discuss it intelligently,( I'll
decide if you understand it) I'll reread the Manifesto.

Pan Ohco

On 2 Sep 2004 21:05:08 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>Ok, so according to you, I should be the same here as I am in my
>daily routine. I have no right to be brasher or more abrasive. I
>have no right to be more direct and less diplomatic. Are you aware
>that this is NOT a peer review group, but rather an informal
>discussion between consenting adults?

Oh I'M sorry. I assumed that you were the same off line as on line.
And yes you do have the right.
Not very ethical, but you have the right.

>>>> Have you read "Deliver us from evil" yet.
>>>
>>>I promise to read it after you read the Manifesto and can discuss
>>>it intelligently. And I will if you do, scout's honour.
>>
>> How about you read "Deliver us from evil" and if you discuss it
>> intelligently , I will read the manifesto.
>
>No no no...you were challenged first.

No actually you did when you "Put the manifesto on my reading list"

>You either accept or reject,
>those are your options. If you accept, then we will proceed to the
>point where I am satisfied that you understand the Manifesto

Again your arrogance is showing. You will decide if I understand
something?

>(I'll be
>gentle on your bruised USAian psyche)

Another slight.

>and then we pass on to step two
>which I have agreed to do upon your completion of the task.

Oh and when did I agree to these rules, that you decided upon

> If you
>reject it, the discussion stops there, but you lose the right to use
>the word commie or to make any disparaging remarks about Karl Marx in
>the future.

I don't think so. Once again I didn't agree to these rules. And I have
the right to call him nuts.

>>> Tit for tat,
>>>except that you seem to favour repeating simplistic and oft
>>>refuted explanation provided by INGSOC
>> What is INGSOC?

> it refers to the government in 1984 (INGSOC = English
>Socialism), but generally to any government that gets too big for its
>britches. Bush and his coven of cronies are a manifestation of
>INGSOC. Don't tell me you never read 1984...

Yes I have, I read it when it was still futuristic. But I see you
just got around to reading it.
Oh by the way I've read the Manifesto about 40 years ago. But if you
read the book I suggested, and can discuss it intelligently,( I'll
decide if you understand it) I'll reread the Manifesto.

Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 2 Sep 2004 20:45:31 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>> And President Bush has released his records.
>>> Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........
>>
>>If he does, will you vote for him?
>
> Probably not

Does this imply you might if all he said was confirmed by his
records? Otherwise, why should he bother if all it's going to do is
result in no change. You should put your vote on the line and say:
John Kerry, if you release your records and they are as you say they
are, then you can count on my vote! The problem is the people who
are demanding to see this information have no intention of voting for
him anyway. So, to put it in terms a pocketbook conservative like
you might understand, what's in it for him?

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 2 Sep 2004 20:45:31 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>> And President Bush has released his records.
>>> Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........
>>
>>If he does, will you vote for him?
>
> Probably not

Does this imply you might if all he said was confirmed by his
records? Otherwise, why should he bother if all it's going to do is
result in no change. You should put your vote on the line and say:
John Kerry, if you release your records and they are as you say they
are, then you can count on my vote! The problem is the people who
are demanding to see this information have no intention of voting for
him anyway. So, to put it in terms a pocketbook conservative like
you might understand, what's in it for him?

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 2 Sep 2004 21:05:08 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>Ok, so according to you, I should be the same here as I am in my
>>daily routine. I have no right to be brasher or more abrasive. I
>>have no right to be more direct and less diplomatic. Are you
>>aware that this is NOT a peer review group, but rather an informal
>>discussion between consenting adults?
>
> Oh I'M sorry. I assumed that you were the same off line as on
> line. And yes you do have the right.
> Not very ethical, but you have the right.

Ethical? How is it not ethical? I am not under any constraint to
perform as per my employment parameters outside of my employment. In
fact, it would be sheer madness to maintain the same facade of bland
disinterest that I have to wear day in day out because the suits
don't understand what we do.

If it is not ethical, it not unethical either. As I am not in a
position of power or influence, ethical has nothing to do with it.
Maybe what you mean is that it isn't being nice. It's not being rude
either. But hey, you're here by your own consent. If you don't like
what you see, your option is to go somewhere else where they might be
inclined to give you some sort of validation.

Anyway, I won't be checking in for a few days. My wife is returning
from a two-week trip to Europe in a few hours and I plan on spending
the last few days of my summer vacation in a restful fashion.

ObFood: I have purchased some bison filets and cremini mushrooms for
her (I don't eat red meat anymore) and some delightful organic
nitrate-free ham and bacon. I have frozen spaghetti sauce with
textured soy protein I made earlier in the week and over a litre of
yogurt left over from a two litre bucket I made fresh on Monday. I
have ripe field tomatoes and fresh cucumbers to make salads with. We
have fresh herbs in the garden. We're going to go with the flow,
food-wise.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 2 Sep 2004 21:05:08 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>Ok, so according to you, I should be the same here as I am in my
>>daily routine. I have no right to be brasher or more abrasive. I
>>have no right to be more direct and less diplomatic. Are you
>>aware that this is NOT a peer review group, but rather an informal
>>discussion between consenting adults?
>
> Oh I'M sorry. I assumed that you were the same off line as on
> line. And yes you do have the right.
> Not very ethical, but you have the right.

Ethical? How is it not ethical? I am not under any constraint to
perform as per my employment parameters outside of my employment. In
fact, it would be sheer madness to maintain the same facade of bland
disinterest that I have to wear day in day out because the suits
don't understand what we do.

If it is not ethical, it not unethical either. As I am not in a
position of power or influence, ethical has nothing to do with it.
Maybe what you mean is that it isn't being nice. It's not being rude
either. But hey, you're here by your own consent. If you don't like
what you see, your option is to go somewhere else where they might be
inclined to give you some sort of validation.

Anyway, I won't be checking in for a few days. My wife is returning
from a two-week trip to Europe in a few hours and I plan on spending
the last few days of my summer vacation in a restful fashion.

ObFood: I have purchased some bison filets and cremini mushrooms for
her (I don't eat red meat anymore) and some delightful organic
nitrate-free ham and bacon. I have frozen spaghetti sauce with
textured soy protein I made earlier in the week and over a litre of
yogurt left over from a two litre bucket I made fresh on Monday. I
have ripe field tomatoes and fresh cucumbers to make salads with. We
have fresh herbs in the garden. We're going to go with the flow,
food-wise.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 2 Sep 2004 21:05:08 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>Ok, so according to you, I should be the same here as I am in my
>>daily routine. I have no right to be brasher or more abrasive. I
>>have no right to be more direct and less diplomatic. Are you
>>aware that this is NOT a peer review group, but rather an informal
>>discussion between consenting adults?
>
> Oh I'M sorry. I assumed that you were the same off line as on
> line. And yes you do have the right.
> Not very ethical, but you have the right.

Ethical? How is it not ethical? I am not under any constraint to
perform as per my employment parameters outside of my employment. In
fact, it would be sheer madness to maintain the same facade of bland
disinterest that I have to wear day in day out because the suits
don't understand what we do.

If it is not ethical, it not unethical either. As I am not in a
position of power or influence, ethical has nothing to do with it.
Maybe what you mean is that it isn't being nice. It's not being rude
either. But hey, you're here by your own consent. If you don't like
what you see, your option is to go somewhere else where they might be
inclined to give you some sort of validation.

Anyway, I won't be checking in for a few days. My wife is returning
from a two-week trip to Europe in a few hours and I plan on spending
the last few days of my summer vacation in a restful fashion.

ObFood: I have purchased some bison filets and cremini mushrooms for
her (I don't eat red meat anymore) and some delightful organic
nitrate-free ham and bacon. I have frozen spaghetti sauce with
textured soy protein I made earlier in the week and over a litre of
yogurt left over from a two litre bucket I made fresh on Monday. I
have ripe field tomatoes and fresh cucumbers to make salads with. We
have fresh herbs in the garden. We're going to go with the flow,
food-wise.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

On 3 Sep 2004 13:00:29 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>So, you can't substantiate it.

If you can ever get this far south, I'll introduce you to these men
that I've talked to.

> In fact, ears were a very popular item,

> You might want to peruse the transcripts of the
>Dellums Committee hearings on War Crimes in Vietnam (1971).
>
>http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm


Michel do you ever read the web sites that you post.

Lt. Laughlin reported that he had heard from an NCO at jungle school,
that ears were a way of keeping count. He never said he saw any ears.

He then goes on to tell about a body count contest, where the full
bodies were displayed. If ear were popular, why were the full bodies
displayed?

>I think you'll be enlightened. Of course, you'll evade the issue by
>making some spurious claim that Dellums was a dove or a commie agent
>or something like that.

This was a ad hoc committee of 11 congressmen, chaired by a freshman
congressman, after the full congress decided that the hearings were a
waste of time.

The names on the committee was a list of the far left at the time.

>You'll refuse, as usual, to taint your views
>with the introduction of solid but contradictory facts.

What you seem to think are solid facts, are not where you yourself are
pointing.

Oh by the way, another Lt. spoke to congress, in front of the Vets
against the War. The leader of which had never served in combat in
Viet Nam.
Pan Ohco

On 3 Sep 2004 13:00:29 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>So, you can't substantiate it.

If you can ever get this far south, I'll introduce you to these men
that I've talked to.

> In fact, ears were a very popular item,

> You might want to peruse the transcripts of the
>Dellums Committee hearings on War Crimes in Vietnam (1971).
>
>http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm


Michel do you ever read the web sites that you post.

Lt. Laughlin reported that he had heard from an NCO at jungle school,
that ears were a way of keeping count. He never said he saw any ears.

He then goes on to tell about a body count contest, where the full
bodies were displayed. If ear were popular, why were the full bodies
displayed?

>I think you'll be enlightened. Of course, you'll evade the issue by
>making some spurious claim that Dellums was a dove or a commie agent
>or something like that.

This was a ad hoc committee of 11 congressmen, chaired by a freshman
congressman, after the full congress decided that the hearings were a
waste of time.

The names on the committee was a list of the far left at the time.

>You'll refuse, as usual, to taint your views
>with the introduction of solid but contradictory facts.

What you seem to think are solid facts, are not where you yourself are
pointing.

Oh by the way, another Lt. spoke to congress, in front of the Vets
against the War. The leader of which had never served in combat in
Viet Nam.
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:16:07 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>With that attitude, we would still be fighting in Vietnam. Remember that
>one. If we leave, the dominoes would fall all over SE Asia.

Yeah I remember that one.

Cambodia
Laos.
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:16:07 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>With that attitude, we would still be fighting in Vietnam. Remember that
>one. If we leave, the dominoes would fall all over SE Asia.

Yeah I remember that one.

Cambodia
Laos.
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:16:07 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>With that attitude, we would still be fighting in Vietnam. Remember that
>one. If we leave, the dominoes would fall all over SE Asia.

Yeah I remember that one.

Cambodia
Laos.
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:26:00 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:

>> Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
>> And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
>> But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
>> wide spread.
>> Pan Ohco
>
>And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?

Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
admitted committing any.

Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
Pan Ohco

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:26:00 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:

>> Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
>> And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
>> But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
>> wide spread.
>> Pan Ohco
>
>And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?

Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
admitted committing any.

Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
Pan Ohco

On 3 Sep 2004 20:01:19 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote in
:
>
>> On 2 Sep 2004 20:45:31 GMT, Michel Boucher >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> And President Bush has released his records.
>>>> Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........
>>>
>>>If he does, will you vote for him?
>>
>> Probably not
>
>Does this imply you might if all he said was confirmed by his
>records? Otherwise, why should he bother if all it's going to do is
>result in no change. You should put your vote on the line and say:
>John Kerry, if you release your records and they are as you say they
>are, then you can count on my vote! The problem is the people who
>are demanding to see this information have no intention of voting for
>him anyway. So, to put it in terms a pocketbook conservative like
>you might understand, what's in it for him?

It would be a beginning. There are other things that he would have to
over come, to get my vote. But proving that he is what he said is high
on the list.


Pan Ohco

On 3 Sep 2004 20:01:19 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote in
:
>
>> On 2 Sep 2004 20:45:31 GMT, Michel Boucher >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> And President Bush has released his records.
>>>> Now if Kerry will sign SF 180..........
>>>
>>>If he does, will you vote for him?
>>
>> Probably not
>
>Does this imply you might if all he said was confirmed by his
>records? Otherwise, why should he bother if all it's going to do is
>result in no change. You should put your vote on the line and say:
>John Kerry, if you release your records and they are as you say they
>are, then you can count on my vote! The problem is the people who
>are demanding to see this information have no intention of voting for
>him anyway. So, to put it in terms a pocketbook conservative like
>you might understand, what's in it for him?

It would be a beginning. There are other things that he would have to
over come, to get my vote. But proving that he is what he said is high
on the list.


Pan Ohco

On 3 Sep 2004 20:24:05 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>
>Anyway, I won't be checking in for a few days. My wife is returning
>from a two-week trip to Europe in a few hours and I plan on spending
>the last few days of my summer vacation in a restful fashion.
>
>ObFood: I have purchased some bison filets and cremini mushrooms for
>her (I don't eat red meat anymore) and some delightful organic
>nitrate-free ham and bacon. I have frozen spaghetti sauce with
>textured soy protein I made earlier in the week and over a litre of
>yogurt left over from a two litre bucket I made fresh on Monday. I
>have ripe field tomatoes and fresh cucumbers to make salads with. We
>have fresh herbs in the garden. We're going to go with the flow,
>food-wise.

Well enjoy the rest of your vacation and you meal .
And I'll speak to when you get back.
Pan Ohco

On 3 Sep 2004 20:24:05 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>
>Anyway, I won't be checking in for a few days. My wife is returning
>from a two-week trip to Europe in a few hours and I plan on spending
>the last few days of my summer vacation in a restful fashion.
>
>ObFood: I have purchased some bison filets and cremini mushrooms for
>her (I don't eat red meat anymore) and some delightful organic
>nitrate-free ham and bacon. I have frozen spaghetti sauce with
>textured soy protein I made earlier in the week and over a litre of
>yogurt left over from a two litre bucket I made fresh on Monday. I
>have ripe field tomatoes and fresh cucumbers to make salads with. We
>have fresh herbs in the garden. We're going to go with the flow,
>food-wise.

Well enjoy the rest of your vacation and you meal .
And I'll speak to when you get back.
Pan Ohco

On 3 Sep 2004 20:24:05 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>
>Anyway, I won't be checking in for a few days. My wife is returning
>from a two-week trip to Europe in a few hours and I plan on spending
>the last few days of my summer vacation in a restful fashion.
>
>ObFood: I have purchased some bison filets and cremini mushrooms for
>her (I don't eat red meat anymore) and some delightful organic
>nitrate-free ham and bacon. I have frozen spaghetti sauce with
>textured soy protein I made earlier in the week and over a litre of
>yogurt left over from a two litre bucket I made fresh on Monday. I
>have ripe field tomatoes and fresh cucumbers to make salads with. We
>have fresh herbs in the garden. We're going to go with the flow,
>food-wise.

Well enjoy the rest of your vacation and you meal .
And I'll speak to when you get back.
Pan Ohco

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:19:44 -0000, Bubbabob
> wrote:


>> Bob I will need the designation of this group, the location, (in Nam)
>> and the approximate dates. (as close as possible.)
>> Any names of the offenders that you remember, the officer in charge,
>> and his commander.
>> Also what your unit was and the dates and location that you were in,
>> in VN.
>
>Khanh Hoa province, 1967-1968. Particularly the three months after the
>Tet offensive. I'm not going to get more specific because my life is
>worth more to me than that

Bubba after 35 years I think they have mellowed by now. If they
couldn't get you in the jungle while they were armed, I doubt if they
could get you now.

> and I've seen what can happen to people who go
>public with specific details on this sort of thing.

I see man that threaten to, and tried to kill me 20 years ago, quite
frequently. The just walk by and say hi now.

If you feel uncomfortable just sent the information to my e-mail.

>
>The guy with the skull puppet was at Thanh Son Nhut Air Base. He was
>there when I came in country and there when I DEROS'd. Tall skinny black
>dude, crazy as a loon. Really creepy. Had a cigar glued into the skull's
>mouth and a baseball cap glued to his head. Bad ventriloquist, his lips
>moved. A lot of people I know who went through Thanh Son Nhut in those
>days remember him.

I will be at the local VFW this week end and will ask if anyone knows
what happen to the Ventriloquist. Every one that went thru VN went
through Thanh Son Nutt.
Pan Ohco

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:19:44 -0000, Bubbabob
> wrote:


>> Bob I will need the designation of this group, the location, (in Nam)
>> and the approximate dates. (as close as possible.)
>> Any names of the offenders that you remember, the officer in charge,
>> and his commander.
>> Also what your unit was and the dates and location that you were in,
>> in VN.
>
>Khanh Hoa province, 1967-1968. Particularly the three months after the
>Tet offensive. I'm not going to get more specific because my life is
>worth more to me than that

Bubba after 35 years I think they have mellowed by now. If they
couldn't get you in the jungle while they were armed, I doubt if they
could get you now.

> and I've seen what can happen to people who go
>public with specific details on this sort of thing.

I see man that threaten to, and tried to kill me 20 years ago, quite
frequently. The just walk by and say hi now.

If you feel uncomfortable just sent the information to my e-mail.

>
>The guy with the skull puppet was at Thanh Son Nhut Air Base. He was
>there when I came in country and there when I DEROS'd. Tall skinny black
>dude, crazy as a loon. Really creepy. Had a cigar glued into the skull's
>mouth and a baseball cap glued to his head. Bad ventriloquist, his lips
>moved. A lot of people I know who went through Thanh Son Nhut in those
>days remember him.

I will be at the local VFW this week end and will ask if anyone knows
what happen to the Ventriloquist. Every one that went thru VN went
through Thanh Son Nutt.
Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:26:00 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
>>>And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
>>>But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
>>>wide spread.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?
>
>
> Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
> committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
> vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
> not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
> least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
> admitted committing any.
>
> Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
> any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
> So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
> widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
> Pan Ohco

And you reached this conclusion exactly how?

--
Alan

"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:26:00 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
>>>And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
>>>But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
>>>wide spread.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?
>
>
> Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
> committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
> vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
> not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
> least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
> admitted committing any.
>
> Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
> any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
> So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
> widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
> Pan Ohco

And you reached this conclusion exactly how?

--
Alan

"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:26:00 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
>>>And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
>>>But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
>>>wide spread.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?
>
>
> Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
> committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
> vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
> not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
> least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
> admitted committing any.
>
> Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
> any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
> So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
> widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
> Pan Ohco

And you reached this conclusion exactly how?

--
Alan

"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:26:00 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
>>>And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
>>>But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
>>>wide spread.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?
>
>
> Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
> committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
> vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
> not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
> least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
> admitted committing any.
>
> Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
> any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
> So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
> widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
> Pan Ohco

Now that I think of it, I can remember an atrocity. It was even captured
on film. The little Vietnamese girl running down the road, naked and
covered with napalm.

--
Alan

"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:26:00 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
>>>And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
>>>But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
>>>wide spread.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?
>
>
> Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
> committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
> vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
> not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
> least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
> admitted committing any.
>
> Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
> any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
> So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
> widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
> Pan Ohco

Now that I think of it, I can remember an atrocity. It was even captured
on film. The little Vietnamese girl running down the road, naked and
covered with napalm.

--
Alan

"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 02:26:00 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes Alan I agree with you that atrocities did occur.
>>>And when they were found out, the offenders were prosecuted.
>>>But Kerry smeared an entire body of men by suggesting that this was
>>>wide spread.
>>>Pan Ohco
>>
>>And you know this NOT to be true? Or didn't want it to be true?
>
>
> Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
> committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
> vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
> not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
> least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
> admitted committing any.
>
> Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
> any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
> So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
> widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
> Pan Ohco

Now that I think of it, I can remember an atrocity. It was even captured
on film. The little Vietnamese girl running down the road, naked and
covered with napalm.

--
Alan

"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:37:22 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>> Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
>> committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
>> vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
>> not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
>> least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
>> admitted committing any.
>>
>> Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
>> any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
>> So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
>> widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
>> Pan Ohco
>
>And you reached this conclusion exactly how?

Read the above and apply logic.
Pan Ohco

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:37:22 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>> Well Alan I asked in this group and asked you directly if you had
>> committed atrocities. Of those who identified themselves as Viet Nam
>> vets in this news group, you did not respond, so I'm assuming you did
>> not commit atrocities. One responded that he saw atrocities. So at
>> least in this group only 50% even saw any atrocities, and none
>> admitted committing any.
>>
>> Of the vets that I have spoke to in this regard, none have admitted to
>> any actions that would have been considered atrocities.
>> So yes, I know that there were atrocities, but they were not as
>> widespread as was made out to be by the war protesters.
>> Pan Ohco
>
>And you reached this conclusion exactly how?

Read the above and apply logic.
Pan Ohco

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:38:41 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>
>Now that I think of it, I can remember an atrocity. It was even captured
>on film. The little Vietnamese girl running down the road, naked and
>covered with napalm.

And as horrendous as that was, it is not an atrocity as we are
speaking of. Atrocity = war crimes.
Pan Ohco

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:38:41 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>
>Now that I think of it, I can remember an atrocity. It was even captured
>on film. The little Vietnamese girl running down the road, naked and
>covered with napalm.

And as horrendous as that was, it is not an atrocity as we are
speaking of. Atrocity = war crimes.
Pan Ohco