A few letters off. Close enough that it could be an autocorrect. Also that name is often confusing to people who don’t know it. The writer of the story isn’t the vet who told the story. I cannot see how it invalidates any of what he said.
He describes in detail the flag he saw, what base office he contacted, and their ruling on his complaint.
I notice it was close enough that other people on the thread knew right away that it referred to the boneyard.
While you argue silly points, the point of the story is that the fag flag still flies there, while a USAF vet who lost three limbs was brushed off when he pointed it out.
Look up “prig”. It kind of fits this.
Yes, most errors/typos/incorrect usage can be interpreted to understand the intended meaning. The likelihood of an “autocorrect” seems minimal, given the length of the article not lending itself to being done on a mobile device, the usual offender in an “autocorrect” situation. I did not assert any such thing as invalidation, merely making an observation on the condition of what attempts to pass as acceptable written usage in the current day. You may not agree with that observation but I don’t see how that qualifies you to then sling an ad hominem as an acceptable disagreement.
I agree that the flying of any flag besides the correctly displayed Stars and Stripes on a military facility is an affront to patriotic persons. The vet was absolutely correct and the “response” from a base official was politically correct pap.