"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:20:27 -0800, redc1c4
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
wrote:


"Vince" wrote in message
news La N wrote:
"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote
in
message ...

You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
understand.



Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar
...


- nilita

he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the
case
is closed


Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of
whom has
never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)

That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.

Peter Skelton

cite?

redc1c4,
who's seen Ponce be wrong many times, but who's never seen him admit it.

I've never seen you admit it either, and I've sure as hell seen
you wrong.

Ayup. Not admitting that one is wrong seems to be a defended Usenet
"disease".

(The whole V-22 thing has two wrong sides screaming
yes and no about something clearly unproven.)

What Vince does, like most posters, is abandons a point where he
is clearly incorrect. Pragmatically speaking, it's a good
approach.

It is one approach. And, now, can you tell me where Vince has been
"incorrect"?

I'm being facetious. I do believe that most posters believe themselves to
be *right* all of the time; and, if they "abaondon a point" knowing they're
wrong, it's barely noticeable.

Anyway, this supply/logistics debate seems to be about semantics. People
can mean what they want it to mean. The "proper" [military] definition and
distinct interpretation is helpful.

- nilita