Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl; cyncooper
From one of the memos:

Harris gave me a message today from Grip (a headquarters unit) regarding Bush's OETR (officer efficiency training report) and Stuart is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any comments from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate."

This is an explanation. "Message" is the Direct Object of the sentence. This theme is carried through and is the antecedent to the pronoun IT.

The theme is the message received from Grip. Therefore, the proper reading is this: "Stuart is pushing to sugar coat it." does not refer to Lt Bush's OETR, but it refers to the MESSAGE FROM GRIP.

Stuart is pushing to sugar coat the message from GRIP. The message from Grip probably is sarcastic about the conduct of this commander's office and his inability to decide if he'll rate Bush or not.

Stuart probably is saying, "don't take the sarcasm personally." but the Commander says, "I won't sugar coat the sarcasm about this HQ."

Instead, he's gonna finally make a decision and decide NOT to rate Lt Bush because he didn't really observe him.

I'm not convinced of the forgery theory. The military details in the documents make sense.

237 posted on 09/09/2004 9:45:40 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Proudly Supporting BUSH/CHENEY 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
I'm not convinced of the forgery theory. The military details in the documents make sense.

Same here.

256 posted on 09/09/2004 9:50:21 AM PDT by cyncooper (We're mad as Zell and we're not going to take it anymore!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

To: xzins

Thank you so much for your insight!


260 posted on 09/09/2004 9:51:11 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
The military details in the documents make sense.

that may be true, but how do you explain the word processing details, specifically the reduced font superscript on a 1972 typewritten memo. There were no typewriters capable of doing that in 1972 and in order to have the reduced font superscript, one had to use a TYPESETTER and what are the odds that a National Guard memo would be printed on a typesetter? One would only do that if they had planned on making a couple hundred copies of the document and it would have been done in a printing facility and not in the commander's office.

280 posted on 09/09/2004 9:56:21 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

To: xzins

"Harris gave me a message today from Grip (a headquarters unit) regarding Bush's OETR (officer efficiency training report) and Stuart is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any comments from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate"

Did anyone here from the USAF in the 70's ever hear of an OETR? I never heard them called anything except "OER's".


488 posted on 09/09/2004 11:31:47 AM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson