President Good Brain Turned a Veterans Meeting into the Dumbest Movie Debate of All Time

LOL

LTC (Join to see) Yup, he is still the President. I'm not sure what your point is though. If it's that people shouldn't post unflattering articles about POTUS, I'd disagree. If POTUS says or does silly things, it shouldn't be out of play to repost those things - he said it. He did it. That's just reality. We shouldn't have to just sit idly by and not point out that the Emperor may have forgotten his clothes.

MAJ Bryan Zeski I welcome all your objective observations.

I await your objective observation.

SPC G; I reread #2 and it warranted further response.

In part, You write
“2. In military writing "Respectfully" should be used in sentences or phrases such as "Respectfully, I disagree" not "Respectfully your experience is not relevant...." implying you know better again. The former is professional writing, the latter is a punk kid......and that is why he doubts your rank publicly. It's how your writing (like I said earlier but you refuse to accept it).

This isn’t military writing. We’re not banging out MFRs. RP is a social networking site.
Also, your assessment is inaccurate. “Respectfully your experience is not relevant” is about as professional as it can get when someone cites irrelevant experience. If you can explain how a career in law enforcement is relevant to these news articles, please do.

What is far more likely, is that another faulty argument style is when people get backed into a corner, they’ll cite irrelevance so as to somehow justify what they’re arguing. ‘Well I was a cop for 30 years’. ‘Well my father was a journalist so I think I would know’. Stuff like that. Citing irrelevant work history is an incredibly weak and unprofessional form of discourse.

*note for a belly laugh example, watch the movie ‘groundhog day’. Phil goes to learn piano lessons. On day one, he’s awful. After a short montage, he’s playing Beethoven. Of course, his teacher thinks the lesson is his first. When she asks if he has any experience, he looks at her all smug, and says, “well, my father was a piano mover”. She looked at him like he was insane, as his dad being a piano mover was irrelevant to his apparent piano prodigy status.

While active, I wrote far more blisteringly scathing MFRs, emails, etc to higher ranking folks than MSG C. Despite your critique, you can actually be scathing and respectful at the same time. Really, how should I respond? “I know you said he wasn’t interviewed, but he was. ..oh wait, you were law enforcement?...oh ok, I must be messed up.” Negative. All day, that’s incorrect. That would imply that he’s correct solely on rank and irrelevant experience. If you don’t see the bad precedence that sets, I’d recommend opening your eyes.

“Respectfully, the experience you cited is irrelevant.” And like you wrote, like a broken record. Stick to the point.

That form of writing does not indicate a punk kid. That form of writing indicates an absolute professional who in that instance, knew better, and who values the truth above rank. I did on active duty, and I absolutely do on RP.

This forum isn’t about technical military writing. A far greater skill is how to conduct discourse professionally. Frankly, you’re both lacking. I think it’s partly because you simply don’t realize the difference or how to blend the two.

Good luck.

SGT (Join to see) - Actually, your interpretation of military writing and respect of rank is a little off here. Retired people as a matter of course should respect the rank structure between them. Retired can be recalled to Active Duty. Discharged Veteran.......it's more my choice. Unless I was discharged 2-3 years ago, not likely I will ever get recalled to Active Duty. Thats where your real title matters. If you want to be known as "retired" then you should behave in that manner (even though your not). Now if your going to claim as you did above your actually "medically discharged" and it is your choice how to treat people then "Medically retired". Medically retired usually is not going to return to Active Duty. Either way you convey in a phrase or less your experience level to the reader and they know which way to respond. In my case I don't respect SGT all that much and quite honestly never have much in uniform beyond the min required either for more than one reason. For starters so many people are promoted to SGT that are not ready yet and end up losing it later. Most recent reason is a lot of SGT of recent are glorified SPC. Some even got the rank automatically with no board (so much for the newer car theory....eh?). That is what happens in wartime along with lowered standards........and showered awards. If I see SSG or above I usually do give deference depending on if it is returned or not to others.......give or take there. MSG to CSM, never attack them beyond maybe a rough joke because I think they do deserve the respect regardless.

Anyway, I can see I am wasting most of my time here and your going to stay a rolling train wreck. Which is your choice and really not my issue to try and fix.

SPC G.- You write, “Now if your going to claim as you did above your actually "medically discharged" and it is your choice how to treat people then "Medically retired". Medically retired usually is not going to return to Active Duty”.

Again, your/you’re. Please indicate where I ever stated I was medically Separated/discharged. In fact, I made it abundantly clear that I was indeed medically retired. Frankly, I don’t want to be known as anything. ‘Retired’ is simply, and unfortunately, my status from the Army. And it occurred through the MEB process, not the 20 year process. Again, if you can show any difference in the status of retired, please do so. You have repeatedly failed to.

“In my case I don't respect SGT all that much and quite honestly never have much in uniform beyond the min required either for more than one reason. For starters so many people are promoted to SGT that are not ready yet and end up losing it later. Most recent reason is a lot of SGT of recent are glorified SPC. Some even got the rank automatically with no board (so much for the newer car theory....eh?). That is what happens in wartime along with lowered standards........and showered awards.”

Interesting perspective, particularly as you never served in wartime. Respectfully, that view is as an outsider with no practical experience. But I actually understand that point of view, particularly towards E8, E9. It was my experience that about half got there on merit, half got there because they managed to game the system for 20+ years. Rank is not an automatic indicator of “oh this guy knows what he’s talking about”. Rank is an automatic indicator of “oh, I have to stand at parade rest and say ‘roger’ a lot”.

On RP, falling bank on rank as an indicator of presumed knowledge is fool hearty. For example, MSG C told me that I had no idea what I was talking about when I stated that only a doctor could initiate a med board. I provided him the regulation, to the chapter and section. That’s just one example.

Please remember, you have repeatedly misquoted me and accused me of stating some lousy stuff. You were quite inaccurate, and when asked to simply show where I stated it, you refused to do so. (Because you can’t, because it’s not there, because I didn’t state it). And I haven’t resorted to name calling, like ‘rolling train wreck”. (You have reminded me this is a military forum, so you did get POG once or twice, but that was about it. Forum appropriate). Please explain to me how name calling is professional in any way. You won’t though, as you’ll simply switch gears and attempt to tell me how f*cked off I am in a different way. And I’ll simply correct you with more facts and common sense. Again. And don’t forget. Your/you’re. Big difference.

Good chat.

SPC G: you repeatedly make reference to my “military writing”. Upon further review, I’m about to further demonstrate why you are quite off base, and certainly unqualified. You don’t appear to be able to recognize “military writing”, and you have failed to use it yourself, since your very first response to me.

You inaccurately relayed the facts of the article. I replied “negative...”. And went on to explain where your inaccuracies were. I ended by quoting YOU from your original post on the topic. I wrote,
“Authors ethics and credibility are now open to question same deal with Esquire Magazine, sorry they can't get their facts or timeline straight”. Claiming this article is originally posted in 2017, when it clearly states “2 days ago”, and further asserting that Esquire is a women’s magazine in a comment below (it’s a men’s trends magazine)...well, refer to your previous quote.”

(Note, as you have consistently misquoted me, falsely accused me of nonsense with no citation or evidence, I stand by that statement, and you should heed your own advice)

Moving along, and this is where it gets good. Now, remember, this is a military forum. I responded to you, when you were wrong, with ‘Negative’, A common military term. And I put out the correct information. And I simply provided your own quote to end.

This is the point. How did you respond? Your first word in your first response to me was “Positive”. And then you continued to double down on the incorrect information.
Now, in a military briefing, you’ll hear ‘negative’ all the time. If, in reply, someone snarkily replied, ‘Positive’, and continued with obviously incorrect information, they wouldn’t even get in trouble. Heads would turn, you’d hear some chuckles, and you’d probably be asked to leave and not return.

Really? ‘Positive’, followed by the same incorrect information? Yet you have the confidence to lecture anyone on military writing. Interesting. Good luck. I think I’m done with both of you.