I'm ashamed of my country

wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 17:40:25 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

rdean posted:
"...and regardless of what you mean by
"our"..."

Strange statement, that...should I have said "your"?

What's so strange? You said "our (military)"...define "our"...and then explain
how "our" encompasses any and all that might read your post...

HTH,
R

Of course, "our" as in the "USA's". Naturally I am speaking as an
American. I do still have that right, don't I?

--riverman

On 22 Mar 2006 22:33:23 -0800, "riverman" wrote:


wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 17:40:25 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

rdean posted:
"...and regardless of what you mean by
"our"..."

Strange statement, that...should I have said "your"?

What's so strange? You said "our (military)"...define "our"...and then explain
how "our" encompasses any and all that might read your post...

HTH,
R

Of course, "our" as in the "USA's". Naturally I am speaking as an
American. I do still have that right, don't I?

Hmm...let me check your file....sorry, Mr. Farkleberry, you no longer have that
right...and let me say, on a personal note, that you really ought to cut back on
the Pearl Light and tofu sticks...

Seriously, I don't keep up with who is where or who is from where. I thought
you lived outside the US, but I didn't recall your citizenship. IAC, it's not
material because what I meant by "regardless of what you mean by 'our'..." in
response to your use of "...our military..." was that it really didn't matter
how _you_ defined "our" - no military is "above wanton killing" because every
military is from assembled from the same general resource.

HTH,
R