No subject

Dennis Putnam dap at ILINKS.NET
Thu Jun 5 18:02:46 MDT 1997


At 10:09 AM 6/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Not relevant.  She was ordered to not do something because she was
>violating the UCMJ.
>So was he.
>Are you saying that adultery is OK with some people, but not with others?
>Are you saying that adultery is OK as long as one is not ordered to stop?
>If adultery is in violation of the UCMJ, then this General knowingly
>violated same.  He broke the oath he took when he was commissioned.  What
>was it that was said about Lt. Flinn's violation of her oath - something
>about being scum and totally untrustworthy?
>He violated the UCMJ, he admits it.  When Lt. Flinn's case was prominent,
>her admission of guilt was considered sufficient - isn't it the same here?

Let's not confuse the issues here. I know you want to continue to ignore the
real charges against Flinn but they cases are not comparable.

Flinn - Disobeying a lawful order, Lieing to superiors, adultery
Ralston - Adultery

Looks to me like they should both be punished but not at the same severity,
thus the two cannot be compared. Not that that will make any difference to
the feminists.

Version: 2.6.2


Dennis Putnam
Loganville, Ga.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list