4 ms·

"On October 2, 2013, near the end of the three-year investigation, Navy officials boarded and relieved Capt. Daniel P. Dusek of his command of the amphibious as

"On October 2, 2013, near the end of the three-year investigation, Navy officials boarded and relieved Capt. Daniel P. Dusek of his command of the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard.[8] Fifteen months later on January 15, 2015, federal prosecutors obtained a guilty plea from Dusek on charges of bribery for supplying classified ship movements in the Asia-Pacific region to Glenn Marine in return for prostitutes and luxury hotel stays worth over $10,000.[6] Dusek arranged for the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu to stop at ports where Francis' firm could service the ships. Dusek was released on $200,000 bail pending his sentencing hearing set for April 3, 2015. The previous week, on January 2, 2015, Cmdr. Jose Luis Sanchez pleaded guilty to supplying secret ship movement schedules in return for prostitutes, luxury travel and $100,000 in cash over a four year period."

jessaustin 11y ago
This reply indicates that you are several layers of reading comprehension behind the conversation that 'buserror and I were having. Please note that 'buserror's post helpfully began with a <sarcasm on> tag. It would have taken you less time to re-read the thread, than copying-and-pasting that pile of irrelevance took. If the irrelevant block-quote was an attempted meta-comment on a thread that you found irrelevant or confusing, then keep trying! Don't let me discourage you!
- kombucha2 11y ago
  well I was responding to you specifically. I fail to see how the quote is unrelated as it was from the most up-to-date sources regarding the situation. I apologize for assuming that your response was in earnest. Indeed, I did not see the sarcasm tag despite reading buserror's comment first and then your's. I still don't think your comment is factually correct and if it was in jest, I simply didn't see it as sarcastic despite it being in response to a sarcastic comment. Also, it took me a few seconds to past that comment as I had it on the ready. So really no loss for me, except for responding to your comment, that has indeed cost me much more time than my first comment did. ;)
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    "After a lengthy investigation, lobbyists have determined that neither Glenn Marine nor its CEO "Fat" Leonard Francis have ever given any money to a PAC, super-PAC, campaign, or think tank." "To bribe a C.O. directly is to ignore the chain of command, and that shit ain't cool."
    - kombucha2 11y ago
      I love how aren't reading my comment. I also didn't know buserror's sarcasm tag immediately transferred to your comment. I genuinely thought your comment was in earnest. The Four Seasons thing did happen, parts of your comment are factually wrong. The fact that you fail to see what I'm commenting on is probably as funny as my original mistake. Sarcasm tag or not I was still commenting on the lack of facts in your post. So agree to disagree??
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        "Whoosh!"

jessaustin 11y ago

This reply indicates that you are several layers of reading comprehension behind the conversation that 'buserror and I were having. Please note that 'buserror's post helpfully began with a <sarcasm on> tag. It would have taken you less time to re-read the thread, than copying-and-pasting that pile of irrelevance took. If the irrelevant block-quote was an attempted meta-comment on a thread that you found irrelevant or confusing, then keep trying! Don't let me discourage you!

kombucha2 11y ago
well I was responding to you specifically. I fail to see how the quote is unrelated as it was from the most up-to-date sources regarding the situation. I apologize for assuming that your response was in earnest. Indeed, I did not see the sarcasm tag despite reading buserror's comment first and then your's. I still don't think your comment is factually correct and if it was in jest, I simply didn't see it as sarcastic despite it being in response to a sarcastic comment. Also, it took me a few seconds to past that comment as I had it on the ready. So really no loss for me, except for responding to your comment, that has indeed cost me much more time than my first comment did. ;)
- jessaustin 11y ago
  "After a lengthy investigation, lobbyists have determined that neither Glenn Marine nor its CEO "Fat" Leonard Francis have ever given any money to a PAC, super-PAC, campaign, or think tank." "To bribe a C.O. directly is to ignore the chain of command, and that shit ain't cool."
  - kombucha2 11y ago
    I love how aren't reading my comment. I also didn't know buserror's sarcasm tag immediately transferred to your comment. I genuinely thought your comment was in earnest. The Four Seasons thing did happen, parts of your comment are factually wrong. The fact that you fail to see what I'm commenting on is probably as funny as my original mistake. Sarcasm tag or not I was still commenting on the lack of facts in your post. So agree to disagree??
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      "Whoosh!"