Ok so I may not be with the Coast Guard folks but I am going to have to disagree with that statement.... :rolleyes:Or did that consideration only apply to them? :confused:

Firstly, the Infinite Monkey theorum, which holds that if you have an infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters, one of them is sure to write "Hamlet" indicates that one will be right. If you are saying that we are wrong, then you are using the wrong theorum.

Secondly, in the sentence quoted above, you cite the "United States Coast Guard" as the subject and "charged" as the predicate.

This may come as a very big surprise to you, but a predicate must be the action taken by the subject. In this case, the Coast Guard did not charge anyone or anything. "United States Coast Guard" is not the subject of the charge but the object of it. Therefore your sentence lacks a subject with a predicate.

"Honestly. You'd think if someone were going to give a lecture about something, he or she would at least attempt to educate him or herself about the subject at hand BEFORE he/she started typing."

Amen.

Trixie, as you well know, I make no claim to sainthood -- nor do I turn the other cheek. When someone makes an unprovoked attack upon me, I tend to respond to it.

You also know that every quote you cited above was in response to something you had written.

Thank you Ben.

Husband will be on shortly to educate you Mike.....

Monkey throws more poo and Hopes you believe it!
 

First, the word is "theorem", not "theorum".
Second, the Infinite Monkey Theorem as specified by Borel mentions nothing at all about Hamlet, but then again, I highly doubt you are (despite your frantic attempts to emulate one) one of his dactylographic monkeys. For that matter, I highly doubt you're an expert on Borel, either. Either way, the magnitude of your ability to be absolutely, completely and stunningly ignorant is mind-blowing. Truly, I am in awe.

Ah, well. I guess it should be comfort enough that you're admitting to being a monkey... But, is this an insult to monkeys? I guess that remains to be seen on the next episode of Maury Povich!

This could be dangerous, General J. Our friend Mikey might very well enjoy some manly education! :eek:

By the way. I am wondering something. When Mike said earlier that he "had a ship to go survey", did he mean that he works on SUNDAYS? I suppose ships might need to be surveyed seven days per week, but if that's true, then why was Mike posting to a message board while on the company dime, using the company's assets????? :confused:

Amazing - searches of vessels entering our waters are subject to 4th Amendment, but warrantless searches of Americans taking domestic flights are allowed because of consent. If RPGs and MANPADS start flying, we can take comfort that at least shoe bombs are not damaging airliners.

Just curious, do you lose any frequent flyer miles for misspellings and poor syntax or do you gain any additional miles for pointing these errors out in others?

I think he was just irritated by the shoe carnival on his last flight. :p

I received an interesting PM yesterday. While I don't usually publish the contents of PMs, I was given permission to do so by the sender (who also sent it to a number of other people).

To start with, TrixieVictoria's statement that "Ok so I may not be with the Coast Guard folks..." is not exactly true.

TrixieVictoria, in fact, is very much with the Coast Guard folks. Her husband is a member of the USCG and she is active on www.mycoastguard.com -- and suggested to all the other CG posters to come here simply to cause problems.

Her exact words were "I have not let them know my DH is in the CG.....and for now I can not...so I can not defend anything over there reguarding the CG....now there members are HARD core mean folks....and I will let you know I tend to egg on their ire....so even acting like you know me will get you more fire...but if you are feeling like letting the DOGS out.....go get em...

A little while later she wrote, "I brought it on myself.....whiles away the hours...and they don't make me cry...~LOL~ I truly enjoy acting like a stoopid asshat over there."

When she was sent a warning letter by one of the FlyerTalk's moderators, she violated the TOS by posting it in full.

Gargoyle89, who posts on mycoastguard.com simply as "Gargoyle", chimed in with "LOL I'm gonna post but I'm not gonna be nasty to start with and I won't mention I know you at all. I don't think you'll have a problem recognizing my disquise either."

Dangling_Participle, was described by the person who sent the PM as "just a wife of a young Coast Guardsman. She will attempt her educated demeanor but she's really dumber than a box of rocks." Posting there under her other user name, Diva's Mommy, she proved that point with the following statement about one of our members: "What a dipsh!t." (I inserted the exclamation point -- she wrote the word in full.)

General J (known there as Swan Song), you may remember, posted here that her husband "is responsible for Pollution Response in one of the nation's biggest Ports."

According to the PM I received, that is somewhat of an exaggeration:

"Her husband is in the Marine Science; while he does do document verification through marine inspections, he is not fully fluent with the tactical law enforcement or port security in its fullest capacity."

The thread on which all of these quotes (and quite a few others, some in extremely bad taste) appeared has been removed. I don't know why. Normally, I would hazard a guess that the Board's owner found it distasteful, but according to the PM at least one of the owners participated in it and joined in the fun here: BlueClues, who is known there as "SeaSiren".

It is true that there was not a single law broken by any of these women, and unless they themselves are on active duty with the Coast Guard, they are not subject to its regulations.

For all that, the United States Coast Guard is a very proud organization and jealous of the reputation it has worked so hard to build over the years. Having served in the U.S. military, I can tell you that it is not a wise career move for a Guardsman to have his wife disgrace the Guard in this way.

Ladies, if you are going to publish in such an irresponsible way may I suggest that you do not do so in a bulletin board where other posts contain enough information to make it easy to identify you?

While I would not bother trying to find your real names, I can't guarantee that the Coast Guard wouldn't. It really would not be difficult -- especially in the case of Trixie Victoria, who not only gives her real first name on the board but also has a picture of her posted there.

Err, not to spoil a good rant but about 4 pages back I posted that we came from a private CG chat site. Did you think I was lying and we all fell from a big squishy cloud?

Most of us could care less about secrecy and it is naive if anyone was ever under any mistaken impression that any webmaster worth her (er.. or his) salt couldn't trace site visitors origins. Ladies (and Gent), do we remember the PETA debacle? :p

Forgive me if I don't play willy-nilly with the flyertalk search engine and pour over your every post to add my own "aha! you like broccoli and you have red hair! I caught you!!! AND you didn't even fly very frequently last March!" you see I just don't *care*, nor am I knowledgable on broccoli, red hair, or flying in March.

However, I'll be happy to continue discussing USCG port security because that I do care about, and know a little something about ;) Hence I stand by every word I typed in this thread and if I remember tomarrow evening, I'll stop back by and continue the debate if it's still flying.

I admit I am very critical of the Patriot Act and personal rights issues aside, I think many of the recent airline security measures added are just plain redundant and silly, can you see how commercial passengers are a differant entity than say, a private passenger on a personally owned vessel or even an employee on a commercial vessel. The sheer scope of people-numbers seems to really differentiate the two. Large passenger ferries and cruise ships might be a decent comparison.

No, I did not think you were lying. However, when I welcomed you to this board I did not think that your collective purpose in coming here was simply to cause problems.

Or do you think I am lying when I said that TrixieVictoria invited you here specifically for that purpose and said, "I truly enjoy acting like a stoopid asshat over there"?

Do you think I am lying when I quoted Gargoyle89 as saying "but I'm not gonna be nasty to start with"?

Do you think I am lying when I cited Dangling_Participle's ""What a dipsh!t" remark?

You (at least I presume it was you as you are one of the board owners) closed the thread on which all of these remarks -- and many even worse which I have not repeated were posted. I don't know why you waited several days to do this, but perhaps you might want to re-open it so that everybody here can see exactly what was posted there.

Wrong and whomever your source is hasn't a clue as to what my husband does for a living.

My user name is SEASWAN. My husband supervises the Pollution Response and Investigations parts of his unit, which includes roughly 35 people. He is fully qualified to handle various weapons that the USCG uses and has been trained for tactical response should the necessity arise. He is the 2nd highest enlisted member at his current unit. He is "the man" that deals with every single oil spill, tug boat sinking, and hazmat situation that happens in this AOR.

Just remember to thank my husband for cleaning up the oil spill that Hurricane Ivan caused in the Gulf. If he hadn't, you would still be paying over $2 a gallon for your gas. :rolleyes:

The error in writing your user name was mine, not that of the person who sent the PM.

In that PM, the person wrote:

"I'm sorry some felt the need to inundate your forums recently with irreverant intentions to stir the pot and make light of your forums. Not to mention, they greatly embarrassed the US Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Family. Please accept my apology for them. Not all Coast Guard members, veterans and family members are like that or act like that. "

Two questions:

1. Do you agree with the accuracy of the above paragraph?

2. Why was the three or four page thread removed today from www.mycoastguard.com? Why not leave it there for all to see if it has been misrepresented here? (In fact, out of respect for this board, I actually omitted some of the worst comments posted on it.)

I agree I was an embarrassment to a lot of people....but as far as the information...you could google the user name and find me there...and the picture is of a Makeover I received in a Nationally Distributed Magazine....so no secrets there.

I went else where to vent about my treatment here. I have seen it a bunch of times here....there are several sites devoted to discussing vent or rants here...

Dovster thanks for sending me the content of the PM…I know the person who sent it to you and am not surprised.

To be honest the pages were removed to prevent further embarrassment to the members here including yourself, and well as the moderator mentioned. Not to be disrespectful any further....

I was a troll and as a troll I should slink back to my cave....