BS: shooting at Texas army base

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: heric
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 10:44 PM

There wasn't one, Guest JT.

Subject: RE: BS: name of solist of National Anthem Ft. Hood
From: GUEST,J. Teeter
Date: 23 Nov 09 - 08:25 PM

Does anyone know the name of soloist who sang the Nation Anthem at the Fort Hood Memorial? I've searched on line and called music stores etc to see if it is on CD. Please respond.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 01:55 PM

Adding a bit to artbrooks-
Fort Hood Directorate of Emergency Services is a large group, headed by Mr. Charles Medley, civilian, offering police, and other services.

It is one of many Directorates at Fort Hood, listed on the Fort Hood website:
http://pao.hood.army.mil/directorates.aspx

Of these directorates, only the Hood Mobilization Brigade, and the Chaplains directorate, are headed by commissioned military officers. Most may be contacted by people outside the Fort, but not Emergency Services, Internal review, etc., which deal with security and policing.

Noted far above that Fort Hood essentially is a city; for the troops but with many civilian services. This is true of most military posts.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 01:26 PM

Under most circumstances, police officers on military are "civilian" employees rather than military police. {And I "..." civilian because most police officers refer to the likes of us as civilians.} This is because, in a military context, law enforcement is just not a military function. The US military moved away from having soldiers function in non-military roles (such as, to give another example, the time-honored KP) many years ago. There are exceptions, of course (I got a speeding ticket from a (female) MP sergeant on Ft. Bliss a couple of years ago).

Since soldiers of any rank are not allowed to carry weapons on duty, unless they are heading for the firing range, and carrying of privately-owned weapons off duty in not allowed on military installations, it is most likely that any armed officer responding at Ft. Hood was a civilian police officer rather than a "regular American Army white person". In fact, one officer was (visually) African-American and the other was (visually) a "white" female.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 10:41 AM

Jeri, you confuse a point-of-view with hatred. That's intolerant.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Nov 09 - 10:39 AM

Frank Rich in this Sunday's NY Times has the best analysis of the situation I've heard in the opinion section. He's nailed it.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 04:32 PM

"Frank, that's bigoted, close-minded, hateful horse shit."


               Factual horse shit, nonetheless!

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Janie
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 03:43 PM

Thanks, mg, for the clarification. That was apparently clear to those who have been reading carefully and participating in this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 03:27 PM

By outsider I meant someone from outside the base.

And any military base has to be alert for attacks from without, and from within, from stressed out personnel with access to weapons. And should have a percentage of its population with licenses to carry weapons..perhaps only higher ranking officers and NCOs. I don't know. mg

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: meself
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 02:11 PM

That's quite a story ... I can't top it ... !

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 12:55 PM

Thanks neself. The whole story is more complicated.

Let's talk over-reacting.
I'm at a secure facility and I hand the guard my exchange badge, say my password and he looks for the facility badge.
He realizes I gave him the wrong badge NOT because of the picture on it but because the password I gave him is wrong. Says "Please step to the back of the 'cage' (wired in area) and do not move.

Then he calls the cops and they start showing up. Maybe three or four cop cars with lights and sirens that came from who-knows-where, then a paneled truck with about 5 more cops, then a cop car with a working dog. All the humans had M-16s and the dog had teeth. Me, up against the wire, hands and feet spread and holding onto it. (They told me that the week before, some Colonel did something similar, gave them some lip and wound up 'kissing concrete', but I did everything they told me and shut up. (I know how hard that last is to believe, but it's true.)

They 'talked to' me and called my boss (who had handed the badges out after we left the previous facility) who 'talked to' me for not noticing she'd fucked up and subsequently got both of us 'talked to' by the commander.

And then I went to class on base that night, mentioned I'd had an interesting day, explained what had happened, and somebody in class said, "Oh, so YOU were the 'Whatsit Thingie' (name of cop response situation has been improvised)!!!

This is all pretty funny, considering everything turned out fine. It only has the military police response in common with the shooting at Ft. Hood. They were able to get to me fast because 1) I was outside, plus it was an area they could drive right up to, 2) I did not have a weapon. There was no chance of me shooting a cop, and there were no potential dangers to themselves that they had to discover.

Fundamentally, I think we're all one bad decision away from being chalk outlines. If you think too hard about how easy it is to just walk up to a person and shoot them, you never want to leave your house. It doesn't happen very often though, which may be a little bit of a miracle.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: meself
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 12:20 PM

I'm sure that the actual situation wasn't at all funny - and I don't mean this as any reflection on the actual situation, but the way you worded it, it reminded me of one those comedic routines in which the comic portrays a character who is blaming everyone else for over-reacting to a supposedly trivial event which the audience soon realizes was not so trivial - you know, "And then I had to talk to them on the phone for half an hour before they'd give me one lousy cigarette. Fortunately, my hostage was a non-smoker ... " - that sort of thing; that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 11:51 AM

Frank, that's bigoted, close-minded, hateful horse shit. I suppose if it had been an athiest, you'd have to say it had been his lack of beliefs that pulled the trigger.

On the other hand, I congratulate the many Muslims in the military whose religious convictions are the reasons they don't go nuts and kill their fellow soldiers.

...and that's the last this atheist has to say to anti-religion extremists in this thread. There's a place in this world for hatred, and it's somewhere where I'm not.
~~~~~~~~~

Meself, I don't actually get why that's funny, and I suspect your audience may find it requires too much work on their part.

Unless it's an "And then it took the claims department two weeks to...

...reply to my letter" or an "It took the waiter an hour and a half to...

...seat us" in which case, I'm rolling on the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 11:25 AM

The fact that the trigger man was a Muslim and that this is an issue means that religion did pull the trigger. To what degree none of us really know but it was there.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: meself
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 10:45 AM

"The one time security police were called on me (it was a little administrative oopsie), it took the first cars maybe two minutes to show up, although the panel wagon and the dogs took a bit longer."

Do you mind if I use this line in my next performance? I intend to insert a pregnant pause before the last clause (" ... show up, [pregnant pause] although ... ").

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 10:29 AM

'Religious convictions' did not pull the trigger.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 09:54 AM

"Once again, religious convictions serve to destructive ends."


                  Amen to that!

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 09:44 AM

It was hypothetical. The MPs would have been prepared for this sort of thing if it had been done by an outsider to the base.

You betcha--they probably wouldn't have gotten onto the base with a gun. We probably need a cop to answer a cop question, but if the MPs pull up to a building where shooting has been reported, I rather doubt they just go storming in, and I think this went down very fast.

The one time security police were called on me (it was a little administrative oopsie), it took the first cars maybe two minutes to show up, although the panel wagon and the dogs took a bit longer. Two minutes is fast.

Some of us have fired weapons, some have been around weapons fire, and still others have watched war movies and cop shows. How many rounds to you think a person can fire in two minutes?

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: open mike
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 03:39 AM

maybe the "outsider" label in mg's post
referred to the civilian law enforcement woman
as someone from outside the base...??

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Janie
Date: 14 Nov 09 - 12:18 AM

From lcrchurch.org/toptenhymns.htm

7. Beautiful Savior
(#518, Lutheran Book of Worship)
Click on the Piano to listen to the Hymn


Hymn #7 in the LCR Top 10 countdown dates back to 1677, when the words were included a German Jesuit hymnal or songbook called the Munster Gesangbuch. But despite its Catholic origins, it is now firmly identified with American Lutherans. In fact, there are dozens of Lutheran churches named after this hymn.

The words were translated from German in 1873 and published in the Lutheran Sunday-School Book by Joseph A. Seiss, a prominent Lutheran pastor, author, and a founder of the General Council, one of the first efforts to unify the many Lutheran church bodies in the U.S. Another translation of the hymn – "Fairest Lord Jesus" – is used by many other Protestant churches. The fourth verse is the same in both versions.

The tune comes from a folk tune from Silesia, now part of southern Poland but formerly part of Austria and then Germany. It's called the "Crusader's Hymn" because it was erroneously thought to date from the time of the Crusades.

No irony that I can see given the actual origins of the hymn and the fact that most know it only as either "Beautiful Savior" or "Fairest Lord Jesus."

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 11:58 PM

A Folk Music Discusion Forum...and NO ONE...(not even in other on-line forums)

...has noticed the irony (wonderful subliminal PR) behind the hymn that was played in the background/preface of Obama's speech? The Marine Crop officer certainly understood the selection...(I hope)

approx = era 1600 (far too late for factuality)and commonly terned

"The Crusader's Hymn.

"

(Look dude/dudette MODS - I travel to the area ....so leave me anonymous .... because this never rose "above the line" and I am a guest, and am unwelcome "below the line" ... and it is not worthy of a new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Janie
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 11:10 PM

I confess I have only skimmed this thread.

I have been following the "news", and what is most striking to me in reading the news are the following observations:

1. There really is not enough information known at present to draw conclusions beyond the fact that a lone military gunman shockingly gunned down at random a number of people at his military base.


2. The posts of Q, Bill D., Jeri and Amos jump out at me as pretty objective. They are not completely harmonious posts, but they all reflect the capacity to accept complexity and multi-determination.

3. Congress, and the nation, are looking for a simplistic model of a scape goat within government and beaurocracy.

The witch hunt is on for some one to blame in addition to the shooter, for not discerning within him the potential for this awful violence. When someone goes berserk and kills a bunch of people in a shooting spree, there are nearly always red flags that are apparent in hindsight. It would appear, at first blush, to have been some red flags in this instance. However, we are country that purports to value differences and diversity of opinion and also purports to value individual freedom. It seems to me that the operationalization of those values include inherent risks that occasionally some one who has come under scrutiny as a potential threat, will be erroneously dismissed as a threat. Speaking very generally and with a detachment I would perhaps not have if one of my loved ones had been killed or wounded by this man, I actually think it is in the best interests of freedom that those who looked at or investigated this man for prior actions or contacts under-reacted rather than over-reacted. Individual freedom is not possible without risk to society.

mg, as I said, I only have skimmed this thread, so perhaps you have already responded to inquiries regarding your post in which you said:

I don't get why there was not a faster military response..mp or something...it was a civilian policewoman who brought him down I think..you have to be prepared for this kind of thing..certainly from outsiders...on a post...mg

Why in the world are you referring to some one who is a citizen of the United States as an outsider? If you have already responded to a similar inquiry on this thread, don't be bothered to answer. I will hopefully be able to read the thread more carefully over the weekend, and will see your response.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 07:17 PM

Kat, the 'MAN' thing wasn't serious. I was trying to provide another example of an 'ist' founded post.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: mg
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 06:49 PM

Well, if the regular American Army white person, who goes running to a shooting and sees people of color shooting,

What? In the first place, why would the regular American Army person be presumed to be white? And most of these people, hopefully including the finance clerks etc., would have had weapons training. And even if they were unarmed they would have a few tricks up their sleeves involving staplers etc. And wouldn't they look at the directions the shots were coming from if numerous people were shooting at one person? Of course they wouldn't know that probably right off the bat..but sometimes it could be easy to see who the main shooter was and who the defenders were..not always..maybe that is what you meant.

I am still curious where the MPs were..maybe it has been explained..maybe it all happened too fast..mg

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 05:07 PM

Well, you were just gender-specific, yourself, Jeri!**bg** (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I do agree with you...a sad thing no matter who or what the killer happens to be.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 05:06 PM

Gee, Jeri, are you implying that a man is responsible for his actions?

These days, ya gotta dress it up in culture, religion, parental shortcomings, the red dye in vitamin pills, influence of computer games, educational shortcomings, improper toilet training, sexual inadequacy, etc., etc.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 04:59 PM

Or maybe we could just go racist and leave the other 'ists' out of it.

Once again an Arab...
Once again, a mentally ill person...
Once again, a military guy...

Lets see what other bigoted stuff we can throw out here, and not say it was simply a disturbed person with a weapon and he did it because HE CHOSE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, TO DO IT.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 04:54 PM

Once again, a MAN goes berserk and kills people.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Nov 09 - 04:52 PM

Once again, religious convictions serve to destructive ends.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: CET
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 08:17 PM

I don't know what the Uniform Code of Military Justice says about insanity, but if it is anything like the common law concept of insanity, I think the defence might have a fairly steep hill to climb to prove insanity (and the onus would be on them). It's hard to argue that he did not appreciate the nature and quality of his acts or that they were wrong.

I don't have much sympathy for his religious scruples about serving in wars against fellow Muslims. He signed up to be an officer in the U.S. Army. It was his duty to serve in Afghanistn. What did he think he was getting into when he accepted the free medical training? If, as reports suggest, he was infected with jihadism, his hypocrisy about fighting Muslims is stunning. The jihadis absolutely revel in killing Muslims (of the wrong kind, of course).

That being said, I still don't agree about putting him to death. This is a poster case for the death penalty alright, but the problem is that if you want to execute Maj Hasan you also have to be ready to kill Guy Paul Morin and David Milgaard (Canadians will know who the are) and Timothy Evans (Brits will understand that reference). They were all found guilty of equally heinous crimes, and they were all innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 07:46 PM

Because it wouldn't surprise me if a regular American Army white person, who goes running to a shooting and sees people of color shooting, would shoot at them.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: open mike
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 05:09 PM

the "alleged" "suspected" "accused" shooter has been charged with 13 counts premeditated murder

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6jRIPy4SRbfWfI3PgZCEL1AnWdg

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AB43E20091112

http://www.cbs19.tv/Global/story.asp?S=11494032


it seems as if it wold have been more just if he had died..
who is payng all the hospital bills, court costs, incurred
by him and his victims...

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 11:24 AM

"But I would further put money down that if any of the shot were people of color, then the chances are higher that they were shot by those trying to help rather than the original shooter..."

             Why would you think that?

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 11:03 AM

"Ebbie will you ever stop critisizing the dyslexic? " Donuel

Sheesh, Don. I might as well ask when you are going to start reading for comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: meself
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:58 AM

"The point is, I think, you can bring him to court and try him, but if he pleads insanity, how would one prove that he's not, given what has occurred?"

If you cannot prove that he is not insane, then maybe just maybe he is insane. So the point is ... you don't get to fry him?

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 10:17 AM

The relentless Christianity in the military (there are documented horror stories about them fragging atheists after they get to the war zone and being completely intolerant of any other religion -or the lack thereof- before going there) certainly had a lot to do with it, but I bet we won't hear that from the investigation.

The poor guy, and how awful for people actually needing shrinks. That is, yes, *after* How awful for the shooting victims and their families.

There were early reports that not all the bullets that hit people other than the shooter came from the shooter, back when there were also reports that there may have been more than one shooter. I would bet it turns out that those running up to help started shooting anybody who had a gun out, without knowing whether they were shooting at the shooter or not. (Which, of course, makes sense, and there might be nothing wrong with that.) But I would further put money down that if any of the shot were people of color, then the chances are higher that they were shot by those trying to help rather than the original shooter...

Wonder if we'll hear any more about that, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 09:10 AM

The point is, I think, you can bring him to court and try him, but if he pleads insanity, how would one prove that he's not, given what has occurred?

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Nov 09 - 09:00 AM

Ebbie will you ever stop critisizing the dyslexic?

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 11:13 PM

The problem is, I think Rig will allow, that as a trusting child he allowed his mind to be filled with computations that made absolutely no sense compared to what he saw in the world. This can be very treacherous stuff.

I have nothing against faith, but filling a child's had with uncomputble data about life is a disservice that can have very far-reaching and very negative consequences.

A

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 10:27 PM

I think the answer to your question mark, Rig, is that this guy was once a child, pure in thought and mind. He is no longer, and justice is required. The first sentence, and what Amos said, are both still true.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 10:01 PM

?

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 09:06 PM

There you go.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 08:40 PM

You can sympathize with anyone, as a basic himan sense of compassion, without ignoring the justice of the situation and the criminality of his acts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 07:52 PM

The guy's obviously bonkers; if they prosecute he'll end up in the loony bin. Not that I have any better idea what to do with him.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:53 PM

"... Mudcatters who appear to sympathize with the killer."

I don't see this. I see some...including myself... who sympathize a bit with his situation, as I sympathize with gays & lesbians who try to serve and are treated badly by bigots.
It might be that Muslims, as well as gays & lesbians, should EITHER be exempt, or stricter attention be paid to making sure everyone is treated fairly.

NOTHING 'excuses' that sort of response to perceived problems. He should be prosecuted.

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:46 PM

The Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people last week at Fort Hood, Tex., did not formally seek to leave the military as a conscientious objector or for any other reason, an Army official said.

It is unclear whether Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, whose aunt has said he sought to leave the military, made informal efforts to leave through contacts with his immediate superiors, and if so how his chain of command at lower levels might have responded to such efforts.

But any formal request by Hasan to separate early would have been submitted to the Department of the Army, according to the official, who saw Hasan's file before it was recently sealed by Army investigators. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly.



In 2007, addressing other physicians at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Hasan said that to avoid "adverse events" the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims. At the time of the shooting, Hasan was about to be deployed to Afghanistan, officials have said.

After the shooting, Noel Hasan said her nephew had sought for several years to be discharged. She said he had consulted an attorney about getting out of the service.

In an interview Tuesday, Hasan's criminal attorney, retired Col. John P. Galligan, declined to discuss whether his client had attempted to secure conscientious objector status or to leave the military.

Even if Hasan had sought to quit the Army over his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army almost certainly would have denied any such request, senior Army officials said. Hasan had a continuing obligation because the Army had provided him with medical training.

In a further indication Hasan was not actively seeking formal discharge, he underwent an Army promotion board in the spring of 2008 that endorsed his performance as an officer as patriotic and elevated him from the rank of captain to major, a promotion that took place in May 2009, according to the official.

The Army faces a severe shortage of officers who hold the rank of major, as Hasan does, and that shortage is particularly acute in some medical branches. The Army this year is short about 2,000 majors needed to fill slots created as the service has grown in recent years, according to Army data. In the field of medical doctors, the Army lacks about 15 percent of the majors it needs, the data show.

To address the shortfall, virtually all Army captains are being promoted to major. The Army's promotion rate from captain to major has been well over 90 percent since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, leading some officers to describe the trend as the "no major left behind" program.

Hasan joined the Army in 1997, attended Army medical training and then worked as a psychiatry intern and resident at Walter Reed from 2003 until July of this year, when he was transferred to the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood. Hasan's last official performance evaluation took place in June of this year, according to an Army summary of his career known as an "officer record brief."

Maj. Gen. Gina Farrisee, the Army's personnel chief, said in an interview Monday that due to the ongoing investigation, she and other Army officials cannot discuss Hasan's specific situation. However, Farrisee said it would take an extraordinary situation -- such as debilitating illness or the death of a spouse -- for an officer with Hasan's rank and medical training to be allowed to resign before completing his or her service obligation. (WaPo)

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 06:37 PM

Hasan had the choice of being a conscientious objector on religious grounds, or of not joining the military at all. As a psychiatrist, he had plenty of other paths he could have been gainfully employed in.

His failure, regardless of the stress or harassment he may have experienced, is in not pulling back from the edge of his own insanity and instead choosing to dramatize it. That was morally unacceptable and ethically weak conduct on his part, and his subsequent acts were criminally insane acts.

No-one forced him to take up arms against he wrong target no matterhow invalidated or beleaguered he may have been by anyone. You just don't take that step, because it is simply wrong.

A

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: DougR
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 05:53 PM

kat: I said nothing about the Major being born or not being born in the U.S. My remarks were aimed at the poster who appeared to agree that Muslims living in the United States should be excused from or not allowed to serve in the military because of their religion.

I'm amazed at the number of Mudcatters who appear to sympathize with the killer. He committed an act of terror. I'm glad he lived so that later he can be put to death after a proper trial. A plea of "not guilty" would appear to me to be a bit ridiculous.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Nov 09 - 03:44 PM

Anyone can be harassed.

Doug, we didn't "let" him live here as a Muslim and be in the army. He was born here. That makes him an American same as you.

As for typos, spellings etc., I am reminded of our own inOBU who has written about his inability to spell due to ADHD: CLick Here and scroll to last paragraph.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: shooting at Texas army base
From: fumblefingers
Date: 10 Nov 09 - 11:47 PM

Harrassed? Officers aren't harrassed.