Author:
El Veeckster-ONI!@!!!
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 22:39:23 11/09/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: 67.3.91.216
In reply to:
Xpltivdletd (ello fragging L)
's message, "Re: Uh, as always, Tks4 a timely response..." on 15:01:12 10/27/02 Sun
Geeze bud.... ahm impressed!
but ahm not sure ahm still with ya? can ya take me through that again, step by step??
>I'll resist the temptation to ask who-all believes
>"E Pluribus Unum" means exactly the same thing
>as "In Loco Parentis." But "...it only
>makes good sense" to report the tempation.
>
>I actually agree that undersage smokin is a bad
>idea--especially in an extra-dry year. Once that sage
>gets burnin it can be a real {dog of the Victim
>Gender} to extinguish. Responsible smokers should
>find less flammable concealment for their disobedience
>to Holy Mother Govt!
>
>OTOH my reason for the rant to which you reply was
>that I've been-there--done-that. My 20 years in the
>Canoe Club were 1969..'89. There was no way to bust
>you for anything but drinking in '69--except catching
>you in the act. Then came the tinkle-test for "drugs"
>in the 1980s. So you know you were smoking and today
>it's everyone whose name begins with a 'V' (just a
>for-instance). No Problem--they hand you the little
>cup and tell you bring it back at least half full.
>You walk into the potty-room and sure enough, somebody
>peed and didn't flush. Nobody's there to see, so your
>problem's just solved itself--right?
>
>Well, friends, I served with someone who thought so.
>Dang his bad luck--whoever had peed and not flushed
>was doing cocaine! So my shipmate had to choose
>between admitting he handed-in a cup if whizz that was
>not his, 'cause he'd smoked some wacky-tobacky--and
>taking a fall for cocaine. Coke would have bounced
>him right out of the Navy with a very bad discharge.
>Weed and faking a tinkle-test just might let him pay
>the fines, stand by for being treated like a
>Republican, and at least let him eventually leave the
>Service with an acceptable discharge. So he
>'fessed-up and after daily tinkle-tests for a
>while--then weekly--they believed him and sent him to
>Rehab. Still with me? Good.
>
>My shipmate's plan must have been tried *a lot.*
>'Cause suddenly in the last ½ of the 80s the law was
>changed--somebody had to WATCH ya whizz in that cup.
>You don't hafta take my word on that. I typewrant it
>here, knowing anyone can check it out if in doubt.
>"Not on my watch! Not on my ship! Not on my
>shoe--please!"
>
>It's a little more invasive than a strip-search.
>Before that can be defended under "In Loco
>Parentis," kindly answer this:
>
>Where you live--would a parent DARE strip-search
>her-or-his own child, before sending same to school?
>Or would that take One Muy Loco Parent (even
>if the GovSchool claims the authority to
>strip-search)..? RKBA! Regards, all.
>
>>cALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLMMMM DOWN BUD! undersage
>>smokin is BAD!! In Loco Parentis, ya dig?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 
Re: Uh, as always, Tks4 a timely response...
