If you'd like to compare combat experience with me, that would be fine. I flew F-4 Phantoms in SEA during the Vietnam war.
Since this is the Internet, we can claim we are/were anything we wish to have been/are/ever want to be. Again, I thank you for your past service, if in fact you served. I was at Pleiku AB, RVN (1970-71), and you were somewhere between 20,000 and 98,556 feet above country, while I was in-country.
If you want to compare familiarity with poets based upon education, I have a BA, MA and JD.
I don't recall asking for your CV, but the education you claim helps to explain your inability to accept that there are other valid opinions in this world than your own. I have all the evidence I need to accept your claim as true. I have known educated idiots in the past, and I am certain there are many that I have not met - and, hopefully - will never meet.
As to name calling, what name did I call you?
I suppose you think I should apologize to you for misinterpreting your admonition to "Stick with being a bootlicker for the cops", as anything other than a compliment? (That's where "Bite me" came in) The military's officer corps desires sycophants and toadies - their promotions are based upon how well they kiss up to their superiors. I'm certain you did extremely well, rank-wise. If you're expecting anybody to kowtow to you - or anybody else - as if you are some kind of superior being, you would be well-advised to look elsewhere. "Homie don't play dat!"
I made no assumptions, merely responding to your ongoing apologia for "all" cops, good or bad, just because they are cops.
I make it a point never to use the word "ALL" when describing living organisms, especially those organisms which may be called upon to function under extreme stress - like combat chopper pilots. If you didn't read so selectively you would see that. You may see the words "a few", "many", "most" (meaning "most of those I have met"), or "the majority" (again, "of those I have met"), but you will never find the word "all" - so don't use that word if you're going to quote me. I have said multiple times that I know there are bad cops, but in my experience they are NOT ALL BAD!
You are the one who responded with "bite me" and I have my head up my butt. Objective analysis says you may or may not have combat experience; you were a cop, evidently, and now are a cheerleader for them, right or wrong. And you are the one who used invective, not I. So what you are, in fact, res ipsa loquitur.
I see your head hasn't moved a micron, either. I doubt that you are capable of "objective" anything, inasmuch as you "quote" people with words they haven't said, and inject ideas and concepts they haven't expressed. You apparently just fill in the spaces with whatever suits your personal agenda. PTSD?
Regarding your claim of innocence in the use of invective, see "bootlicker", above.
I'm not at all impressed with your JD, as it is the degree of politicians and ambulance chasers (I tend to agree with "Dick" in Henry VI regarding lawyers). But, it does give you some fun Latin phrases to toss out at what you obviously perceive as the hoi polloi (personally, I passed on a scholarship offer from McGeorge University School of Law. It's not as prestigious as Harvard, but you get a JD there nonetheless). Individually we are only that which we are, so "res ipsa loquitur" applies equally to you. (Just because "the thing speaks for itself" doesn't necessarily make the observation correct. Try selling your "politically incorrect" res ipsa loquitur to the students at Gallaudet University)