Re: Marching to war

On Oct 10, 2:21 pm, "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"suds mcduff" <sudsmcduff19...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1192030171.088193.297140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Oct 9, 2:19 pm, "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"suds mcduff" <sudsmcduff19...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1191944370.698531.10540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

---- I've seen holy rollers in grunt platoons, and at my MOS
training
school.

Relevance to the claim that started this thread?

---It's damn sure relevant to your claim in this one that you've
never
seen any holy rollers (fundies) as CO's or in positions of
authority,
inferring that I'm a liar.

Have you ever considered getting treatment for this paranoia? I
did
not
say, or imply, that you are a liar.

----Oh sure you do, Burkhead, go ahead and admit it.

No. I'm not going to admit to something I didn't do.

----Sure you did. You snarkily suggested it, then left a way out to
deny it.
Surely you're clever enough to do that.....

If I were going to call you a liar, I wouldn't "imply" it. I would call
you so to your face.

-----No, you're a little more dishonest than that. If evidence is
presented to the contrary, you may feign wide eyed innocence, and
still appear correct.



Your "interpreting" what I did say so that it "implies" (so you claim)
that you are a liar says far more about you than about me.

Your paranoia is not my problem.

----This from a guy who whines when addressed by his last name......
And never fails to mention his nemesie "Hal" in a thread......






Even so, your statement is incorrect.
What _you_ saw is utterly irrelevant to what _I_ saw.

----Your reply might be translated thus:
"Well, Herb, I never saw anything like that either......."
Leaving the casual reader to infer that I must be lying.....

Only if the "casual reader" is a complete idiot.

More likely it leads the "casual reader" to infer (BTW, this time
you
got the correct useage of that word) that your reported experiences
could
well be atypical.

-----More than 5000 instances besides mine aren't enough?

I've already addressed that . . . several times. It doesn't imply
what you think it implies.





Never saw it at Lackland AFB, RAF Chicksands, or Fort Meade
either.
----So, since you've never seen it, it's not possible, eh?

Nobody said it isn't possible, so stop with that straw man.

----That's clearly what you're inferring. If you haven't seen it ,
well,
it's probably not true, and I'm lying. That's not your inference?

What is it with liberals and this martyr complex? I haven't
followed
all of Herb's posts so I can't say whether he's ever said you were
lying
about your own experiences. I certainly never have. I have,
however,
stated that if true (considering the possibility that you could be
mistaken
or misinterpretting or misremembering is _not_ accusing you of
lying, or
even implying that you are) the difference of others is quite
different
and
suggests that maybe _yours_ was, the exceptional case, not the
"norm" as
you
seem to be implying.

-----Sure, sure.

Concession noted.

-----Lack of sacarsm perception noted.

It's not _what_ you said, or your intended sarcasm that's the
concession. It's that you were so devoid of any response of substance that
you had to resort to that schoolyard tactic.

If you'd had better, you would have used it. Ergo....

----Nah, short and sweet is my style, rather than long winded novellas
with a point buried somewhere within.





However
since nobody but you (present here) seem to have encountered it,
it
probably isn't as endemic as you are making it out to be.

Really?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR200...

A military study which found "several examples." And there was
a
"perception of religious intolerance". And the perception was about
"in
more than 300 interviews with cadets representing _all_ faiths and
with
faculty members and with adminsitrators" [emphasis mine]. Gee,
_everybody_
is being discriminated against. Far from being evidence of bias, it
looks
to me more like a Henry Higgens kind of egalitarianism.

This article does not support your contention. If anything it
demonstrates a successful case of the military seeking out and
fighting
against such intolerance.

----So, we went from none to at least 300....

Reading comprehension problems?

300 examples in a study _looking_ for it. And since the examples of
"religious intolerance" were found among _all_ faiths it's hardly
evidence
of bias against atheists. How many of those 300 were atheists?

The evidence you present does not support your contention.

-----So, we went from, "I've never seen such a thing" to well over
5000 instantces.

Already responded to. Several times.

----Good. Then quit bringing it up.


If you're going to continue then deal with the actual response or we'll
just have to infer that you can't.

----You inferred wrong. You can't accept the fact that I've proven
many cases of religious harassment in the armed forces.





Here's another:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3225695/p1/0/

"President Bush's commission on public diplomacy recently noted that
in
nine
Muslim and Arab nations only 12 percent of respondents surveyed
believed
that "Americans respect Arab/Islamic values.""

Yeah, we don't agree with women being required to wear Burkas, with
converting to another religion being justification for the death
penalty,
with women being chattel property of men, and things like that. Bad
us.

Oh, William Boykin is described as speaking to evangelical christian
groups.
(BTW, "evangelical" covers a lot of territory, not all of which I
would
consider "fundie." An important touchstone for "fundie" are belief
in
literal bibilical inerrancy--most Christians are quite happy with
the
idea
that much of the bible is allegorical and metaphorical--particularly
in
respect to "young Earth creationism".) And, yes, he appears to be an
individual of faith. And John F. Kennedy, late Commander in Chief,
was
a
Catholic. There's nothing in the First Ammendment that prohibits
people
of
faith from participating in the political process, including holding
either
elected or appointed office, or military rank and positions.. Nor
is
there
implied that people in office are prohibited from exercising their
faith.

As for the "my God was bigger than his God" crack, I'm an
agnostic
and I
thought it a rather clever response to the Somali warlord's
bragging.

All that is really beside the point. Nowhere in this article
does
it
describe even Boyd, and he's only one man and one man can never
qualify
as
"endemic" in an group of organizations the size of the US military,
participating in or endorsing the kind of systematic persecution
that
you
are describing and what I was referring to above in the line "nobody
but
you
(present here) seem to have encountered it."

This article doesn't even come close to providing evidence that
such
persecution is "endemic." It doesn't refer to the subject at all.

-----Now you've seen a fundie in a position of power.......

You still have not demonstrated that, BTW, but leave that aside.

----Let's not. You claimed you've never seen a fundie (fundamentalist
christian, but I think you knew that) as a CO or in a position of
power.

I know that "fundie" is slang for "fundamentalist christian" but I do
now know what _you_ mean by the term. To some people simply believing that
there was a historical personage, or that _any_ of the events in the bible
happened as described is enough.


------Really? I've rarely seen a Lutheran described as a fundie.


Q



You're saying Boykin is *not* a fundamentalist xtian (fundie,
from here out)? Or, if so, as a general,that he doesn't have any
power?

I'm saying two things: 1) the evidence you presented is insufficient to
conclude that he is a "fundie" in any but the most "liberal" sense

-----Yes, he *is* a fundamentalist xtian in a position of power, you
may spin as much as you like, Boykin would be recognized as such by
anyone with any common sense.





It has
_nothing_ to do with my original contention: in my own experience I
never
encountered it which leads to the conclusion that it's not as endemic as
you
seem to imply.

----But it does happen as I implied.

You "implied" far more than "it does happen." You implied a frequency of
occurance all out of keeping with realith.

----Not really. I've said harassment would be easy to effect in the
military structure, I've seen fundies during my time in.
And, I've given you plenty of evidence that it does happen.




That you are able to find someone who is, for sufficient values of
"fundie" (like "cult," a rather slippery term which generally means
nothing
more than "a religion which the speaker does not like"), after
deliberately
searching for one has nothing to do with the kind of day to day
encounters
that one can expect in a military career.

What you're doing is called "cherry picking" and it's a logical
fallacy.

-------I've just shown you at least two fundies in positions of power,
(which you denied existed.

Now _that_ statement is a lie. (You see--if I'm going to call you a
liar, I will do so to your face.) I stated that _I_ had not encountered
them. You have been corrected on that point repeatedly and from the first
time you brought out that canard so you cannot possibly just be mistaken.
You are lying about my position.

Would you also assume that were I to say that I never once encountered a
gun armed criminal that I meant that gun armed criminals don't exist? Or do
you just assume that's what I meant so you can go off in high dudgeon?

Yes, you cleverly left yourself an exit when
I showed the proof)

IOW, I said what I meant, and corrected you when you misinterpreted my
position to your own advantage.

-----No, you implied I was lying, and when I brought my evidence, you
feigned wide eyed innocence.
A time honored usenet tactic.


and at least 5000 cases of the same

Bzzt. The 5000 cases were _not_ tied to Boyd, even in the "evidence"
you cite. That's 5000 out of every living person who ever served.

----I didn't tie the harassment to Boykin. There are over 5000
documented cases of harrassment in a book by a center right
investigator.
I've provided two examples of fundies in positions of power, which you
had "never seen", Boykin being one of them.
Really, you should be thanking me.
I've broadened your horizon.


who
proselytized enough to make their subordinates uncomfortable at the
least.

Which doesn't take much since you, at least, are made uncomfortable by
the mere existence of Boyd. So even if he did absolutely nothing, that
would be one case right there.

----I doubt the cases documented were feelings of discomfort. But, you
may prove me wrong if you can.....





And another:

Weinstein, a former White House attorney under Ronald Reagan,
general
counsel H. Ross Perot and an Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), has
been
waging a one-man war against the Department of Defense for its
blatant
disregard of the Constitution. He published a book on his fight:
"With
God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in
America's
Military." Weinstein is also an Air Force veteran and a graduate
of
the
Air Force Academy. Three generations of his family have attended
US
military academies.

Since he launched his watchdog organization nearly two years ago
months
ago, Weinstein said he has been contacted by more than 5,000
active
duty
and retired soldiers, many of whom served or serve in Iraq, who
told
Weinstein that they were pressured by their commanding officers to
convert to Christianity.
----So, at least 5,000 have encountered it, according to
Weinstein.
But,
he's probably a lying liberal right? Ooops, "former White House
attorney
under Ronald Reagan", "AF academy grad", " from 3 generations of
military academy grads"..... Never mind------

Even if his statement is absolutely true. And even if the
pressure
was
real pressure and not just the implied "pressure" of most of the
people
around you having some form of religious, usually christian faith,
that's
5,000 people out of _every_ _living_ _serviceman_ or _servicewoman_
_in_
_the_ _entire_ _nation." That's what "active duty and retired
soldiers.
"Many" in "many serving in Iraq" is not quantified.

-----So, we went from "never seen it " to over 5,000......

Since nobody here has claimed that it's _never_ happened, this is
pure
straw man on your part. The claim has been that it's not as endemic as
you
suggest since we have the examples of other people here not running into
it.

------Your semantics suggested since *you've* never seen it, and
Cannon's never seen it, by golly McDuff's making the whole thing up.

Don't quit your day job. A rational person would interpret those (in
fact, I, at least have made it explicit) as meaning that other people have
quite different experience and, therefore, it might not be as ubiquitous as
you imply.

-----<burkhead, throwing hands in the air> "What, me? I'd *never be so
crass as to suggest you're lying!" <wink,wink>


Of course, being a newsgroup veteran, you left yourself an exit in
case I *did* come up with the proof.

I'm, sorry, but no posts showing either that I actually did encounter it
("proof" against the literal statement) or that the kind of persecution of
liberals and atheists is truly as ubiquitous as you imply ("proof" against
the implicit statement) have appeared in my reader. Perhaps you can provide
me with the message ID's for those messages. Oh, sure, there were some
messages which demonstrate that it happens--but since nobody has ever
claimed that abuses of power _never_ happen, that's not really responsive,
and certainly not "proof" regarding anything _I've_ said.

----Here we go round again. You implies that since Cannon never saw
it, and you'd never seen a fundie in a position of power,
well, ol' Mcduff's making things up.


And, I've read you were chased off a physics newsgroup. Was that you,
or some other RMA intellectual?

I wasn't chased off of anywhere. That's Dobson's little fantasy.

I was over there a lot longer than he was. I was a regular back when I
was in school and more or less drifted away over the years.

It wasn't anyone here. Dobson was making stuff up as usual.

Google it if you don't believe me.

----I'm not that interersed. Your musings on a physics group would be
exponentially more boring than the ones you post here.


----So, wew went from "never seen one " to over 5000.....

Repeating the straw man doesn't make it any less of a scarecrow.

----Well, we've seen my viewpoint, and it'd be pointless to repeat it.

So all you've got is the straw man? That's what I thought.

----Proof of my contention is a straw man? Welcome to Burkhead
world......




The report recommended that Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, Army
Brig.
Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj. Gen. Peter
Sutton,
and
a colonel and lieutenant colonel whose names were redacted in the
inspector general's report, "improperly endorsed and participated
with a non-Federal entity while in uniform" and the men should be
disciplined
for misconduct. Caslen was formerly the deputy director for
political-military affairs for the war on terrorism, directorate
for
strategic plans and policy, joint staff. He now oversees the 4,200
cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point. Caslen told DOD
investigators he agreed to appear in the video upon learning other
senior Pentagon officials had been interviewed for the promotional
video.

The inspector general's report recommended the "Secretary of the
Air
Force and the Chief of Staff of the Army take appropriate
corrective
action with respect to the military officers concerned."

The Army generals who appeared in the video appeared to be
speaking on
behalf of the military, but they did not obtain prior permission
to
appear in the video. They defended their actions, according to the
inspector general's report, saying the "Christian Embassy had
become a
'quasi-Federal entity,' since the DOD had endorsed the
organization to
General Officers for over 25 years."

So some people stepped out of line, were investigated _by_ _the_
_military_ and

------Now you've seen fundie co's in positions of power.

And yet we still don't see any evidence that the kind of
persecution
you
are complaining about is endemic.

You see, my statement wasn't that one couldn't find them if one
made
the
effort, but was implying that if they were as endemic as you were
implying
than anyone with any significant military experience would have
encountered
them _without_ having to look for them.

----Nope, just replying to your statement of "Never seen a fundie in a
position of power, And providing cites displaying harrassment, which
you convienently refute without any of your own.

Since I never encountered any of these people, your replies are
non-responsive. I never said they didn't exist. I said that _I_,
_personally_, in _my_ military career, never met any.

You're falling into a "cherry picking" fallacy. The military is
a
big
organization. I am quite confident you can find examples of pretty
much
anything you care to name somewhere among its people. There are
even
enough
high ranking officers, current and past, that much of that could be
found
there. Being able to look and find them really says nothing except
that
the
military is a large organization of diverse individuals. You either
need to
do a systematic study, which none of your cites are

----I know, you'd have to read the book "With
God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in
America's
Military".. Never mind......

Or perhaps you could site where it provides actual evidence of
having
done such a systematic study, or does it do like you've done here, cite
numbers that seem big, but start to approach statistical noise when you
start actually looking at them in context, claim numbers which are
inflated
by including large numbers that are not part of the particular statistic
being counted (examples being HCI's cites of "children" killed with
firearms
which includes as "children" anyone under the age of 24, or your own bit
up
above where 300 people "perceived" persecutions which not only will
include
some people who "perceive" what's not there but specifically stated "all
faiths" where "all faiths" has to be metaphor for "lots of faiths" since
there are more than 300 faiths out there anyway--we don't know that even
1
of those people was an atheist being persecuted for atheism. The
evidence
does not support your conclusion.)

----So, the center right author of the book made the whole thing up
out of whole cloth, or fudged the numbers? Cites are useless when
debating conservatives.

No, I'm saying that _you_ are interpreting what's _acutally_ in the cite
in ways that are contrary to what they actually say.

Frankly, if it had evidence of the systematic study I'm talking about,
you couldn't resist rubbing my nose in it. Bill Occam suggests, then, that
it doesn't.

Nobody has suggested that there are no cases. Nobody.

----Here we go round again.........


What has been
suggested is that it's actually quite rare (judged against an organization,
group of organiztions actually, the size of the US military). But, as we
see above, all you've got is the straw man. You cannot deal with what
people are actually telling you, but instead have to make up a far more
extreme position to "refute." The fact that the people with whom you are
debating don't hold that position is no impediment to you.

-----It's more like: "i'm the great Burkhead, I can't *possibly* be
wrong......
Over 5000 documented cases is plenty, with perhaps hundreds or
thousands more undocumented....



----No ***, that's what I've been saying all this time......

Only you've been breathlessly

-----breathlessly?

Yes, breathlessly

----You're imagination is running wild, Burkhead....




decrying a _specific_ subset of that abuse
as though it's something special. It's not the existence of abuses of
power
that people are arguing--it's your special peading for that small
subset.

-----Snipping remembrances.....

I see. Don't want to deal with more common examples of assholes in
power getting off on screwing around with the troops. You'd rather engage
in your special pleading. Since, obviously, Liberals and Atheists are
_much_ more important than the ordinary run of the troops.

-----No, I don't have the time at work to review boring anecdotes.



----Why did you even get involved in this thread?

Because you are singling out certain sets of cases for special
consideration.

-----So, you are the newsgroup lawyer and conservative protector?
I said it exists, and have shown you that it does. You saw Cannon
getting flustered and you swooped in for the rescue, eh?

Do you even read your own posts? Had you simply said, "it's rare, but
it exists" or even just responded to the arguments against you with a "yeah,
it's pretty rare, but it exists" this would have been over long ago.



-----So, we've seen many cases of harrassment, and fundies in
positions of power, my contentions the whole way.....





-----So, your whole tome could be condensed to "so?"?

It looks like your whole screed only deserves a "so?"

-----Good. Glad I hooked another one. Inadvertant, but it still
counts......

So as to point out that your own bias and anti-nonliberal bigotry
was at
work.

----In that you failed miserably...

And here the blind man tries to tell me that the horse is not gray.

----In that you failed miserably...


I'll admit different. I don't admit "superior." I don't claim
"inferior" either.

----Certainly physically inferior, as I've claimed repeatedly.

And you'd claim wrongly. On average, maybe


---On average, positively.


--the job doesn't require
it--but I've known folk in the Air Force that I'd put up against any marine
out there.


----That I seriously doubt.

But so what? The average Chimpanzee could beat the crap out of
the best Marine out there. So you do you think chimpanzees are better than
marines?

----Obviously, the air force view of marines is of chimpanzees....


Gorillas do it
better anyway.

----And nerds do the same intellectually.....

And yet you continue to emulate the gorillas.

--And you continue to emulate the psudo intellectual nerds.

----Nah, I'm a simple guy. If I were emulating psudo intellectual
nerds, I'd post dense, long winded screeds with a point buried
somewhere whithin.


Remember, it's howl then beath the breast. Get the order right.

I guess you consider that
more your speed?

-----Sure. I've never claimed to be more than the common, joe sixpack
type.

"Some people insist that mediocre is better than best. They delight in
clipping wings because they themselves cannot fly. They despise brains
because they have none." (That's a literary quote, BTW.)

-----By whom?


What is it about "blue collar liberals" where they can't feel good about
themselves without sneering at everyone else.

-----We don't sneer at everybody. Pompous, condescending windbags,
maybe.....



The fact that other folk know
things I don't, can do things I can't, has never bothered me.


-----Doesn't bother me......


Stephen
Hawking is someone to be admired, not someone to be dismissed as a "pseudo
intellectual nerd."

-----Hawkings not a pompous, condescending windbag is he?


And why "pseudo"? What's the criterion for being a
"true" rather than "pseudo" intellectual? Is one required to agree with you
to be "true"?

You really ought to reconsider this line of attack. I don't have to do
anything to counter it. You are only making yourself look childish and
petty.

----I'm a simple guy, I don't know what thes big words mean......





----I never said Marine OCS was easier than enlisted.....

Never said you did. Just pointing out something I found
interesting.
That's why "BTW" instead of "Furthermore."

-----Does *anybody* say "furthermore"?

In writing? Absolutely. In debate? Beyond question. On the web? In
about 175,000,000 web pages.

----In casual conversation?


But, if you go to services, you don't have to do them until the time
provided at the end of the day.......

Either way, you still have to do the same chores. You are _really_
reaching to make this into some kind of cause celebre'.

----I'm stunned that you're still arguing the point.......

I'm stunned that you still haven't gotten the point.

-----Around again?


Perhaps that's a skill you never mastered.

----Ah, another dig among many. And, you wonder why I don't consider
you "civil."

I give as good as I get.

----Yet you whine when addressed by your last name, feeling it's not
"cordial".

You realy ought to invest in a dictionary.

----Really? What's wrong with the statement, Professor?


Strange, especially since you've *always" referred to me this way. I
don't mind, and I find it hypersensetive that you do......

In the past I referred to you as "Mr. McDuff" (not knowing that your
handle was not your name, and was promptly rebuffed with a "my name's
not...."

----Perhaps, since I don't follow all of your posts. T
he ones I Have seen, you've addressed me as "Mcduff".
The one about some religious relevation you had, for example.


I can't really be blamed for not using the honorific when you
specifically objected to it.

Incidentally, I've been trying to keep this civil, even though
disagreeing with you. The use of unardorned last name, however,
suggests
that you would rather not make that effort.

----As I said, almost every post you've ever made to me is replete
with little jabs and barbs, and you expect me to be on a first name
basis with you? I think I'll decline.....

As opposed to your "insult direct"? This is the well-used cauldron
calling the brand new copper kettle "black."

-----I insulted you first? Where? By calling you by your last name?

Perhaps you don't consider things like "pseudo intellectual nerd" to be
insults?

-----HaHaHa, after a whole suite of little put downs and digs, I can't
do the same?

This thread isn't the first place where you've pulled that kind of
"pride in mediocrity" stunt.

------Well, sure, when I'm insulted, I fire back. I think you'll find
I don't insult first,
where you do so right out of the box. I can think of *one* post where
I ve done so.




Now, I think I've used an
unadorned "McDuff" from time to time, but that was based on my
belief
that
your handle was not your actual name (if that was mistaken, I will
appologize and henceforth address you in whatever short form you
prefer).

-----You may use "you' if you prefer, the handle I use I found amusing
at the time and I see no need to change it, it's still fairly
unique.IOW, I really don't care how you address me.

How wonderful for you.

----I'm amused at your sensitivity viv-a-vis usenet postings.....

How wonderful for you.

----That the best you got?




----No, my perfect world would be only liberals being wealthy....

Right. No Freedom of thought or freedom of belief. Agree with you
(be
liberal) or be poor.

And you have the unmitigated gall to complain about anyone else wrt
oppression.

----Perhaps you need to avail yourself of a dictionary, then re-read
my statement:
"In a perfect world, only liberals would be wealthy......"

And I suppose it supposed to just magically happen?

----What does this mean?



----I wouldn't know. My kid seems to make good grades at
university
without any overt ass kissing.

Which may only mean that you cannot see the more subtle. Or it
may
mean
that he is simply a member of the group that is more likely to be on
the
_receiving_ end of the kissing.

----He's at a commuter type university.

Non-sequitor.

----I wasn't debating a point.

Good, because your statement had absolutely no bearing whatsoever to
what it was apparently in response. Good to see that it was just a random
comment, not actually intended to be meaningful.

----I'm glad to see that you cxan see....




----Look, I'm back at work, I really don't have the time, I hope you
don't mind if I skip these lengthy tomes....

IOW, you can't be bothered to read and deal with any position that
disagrees with your own. Well, since you would eliminate anyone who
disagrees from you from succeeding in life, at least financially, I
guess
tha follows.

-----No, at work I really don't have the time to read your long
winded rememberances and arguements, not to mention the research to
refute them, so I pretty much just skim them looking for keywords and
such. As you know, waiting a few days to reply (like till the weekend)
is generally futile, as the thread has died.

How very convenient for you.

----Well, here ya go......check the posting time.......

-----By ass kissing, I don't mean common courtesy. Yes, I don't have
to kiss ass at work....

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

----I have a union job, with over 25 yrs seniority. Common courtesy is
all that's required. I'm sorry that *you* have to kiss ass, though.
Well, maybe I'm not......

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.

-------OK, I'm *not* sorry that Burkhead has to kiss ass on a daily
basis......
I'm *not* sorry that Burkhead has to kiss ass on a daily basis......
I'm *not* sorry that Burkhead has to kiss ass on a daily basis......
I'm *not* sorry that Burkhead has to kiss ass on a daily basis......




----That's what the whole threads been about. Why did you drop in?

It's been about you making up hypothetical situations and use them
as
"evidence"?

If that's the case, then I take back everything I said about no one
calling you a liar since you just called yourself one.

Let's just take "likely" in the above. How many "drinking buddies"
does
an average CO have? How many CO's are out there? How many open slots,
into
which one might be transferred, are there under each of those COs?
Well,
looking at the military and noting that the military tends to get rid of
blatant drunks (who might have a very large number of "drinking
buddies")
how many

-----Wow. Drinking buddies are blatent drunks. Are you a tea totaler?
Ever heard of "the officer's club", or the "NCO's club?' You think the
patrons are all roaring drunks?

Still can't read or do math, I see. It's not that one has to be a
blatant drunk to have drinking budies. It's how many "drinking buddies" one
has to have in order for

Let's say 30% is enough to count as "likely" (IMO, on the low end of
what would count as "likely," but YMMV). Now, lets just look at Company
Grade officers since they are the ones most likely to be in close contact
with junior enlisted. How many of them are there in the Military? What
number is %30 of that? How much time would one have to spend at the club to
have enough "drinking buddies" to match that %30 number.

Let's see, per Wikipedia, there are about 221,000 commissioned officers
in the various branches of the US military. Oh, but a marine is very
unlikely to be assigned to an army unit or what have you (although I've seen
it), let's just limit it to marine officers. That's 19,309. Most of those
will be Company Grade, so lets be frugal and say 10,000. To be "likely"
that the next commander will be a "drinking buddy" of the current commander
he will have to have 3,000 drinking buddies. Now, how much time is he
spending in the club to aquire that many "drinking buddies," to have that
many who know him well enough to care what he thinks about the particular
corporal that's being transferred from his unit to this "drinking buddy's"
unit?

You keep confusing "likely" with "not entirely impossible."

----In my personal experience, in only a four year hitch, I ran into
old friends and officers from vastly different locals.
Boot camp, MOS schools, duty stations.....
You're little number crunching didn't take MOS into account, did it?
You think in a 20 yr career, officers and NCO's won't get to know a
good number of their contemporaries?
That they don't keep in touch?


----Look at the time I posted, if you think I'm lying. Too much
trouble? Left yourself an exit?

Since you are going to take the paranoid approach of assuming the worst
_anyway_ there's no value in even attempting to "leave an exit" were that
actually what I wished.

It's just awfully convenient what gets cut when you're "short on time."

-----Check the time if you wish. If I was bored withy your posts, I
would say so.
Oh, I already have.....


Since you obviously didn't understand that I was engaging in
hyperbole
in the first instance, I explained more simply.

-----Sure you did, and I called you on it.

And when pointed out in more literal terms you completely ignore that in
favor of continuing to beat on the hyperbole as though it were ever intended
as literal truth.

----Thete's that ol' usenet strategy again:
"I didn't *really* mean that, twas just hyperbole...."



<shrug> not my problem that you can't recognize hyperbole when you
see
it.

----Caught you on it, and you try to make hyperbole into some kind of
virtue. OK.

Nobody claims that rhetorical flourishes are particular "virtues."
Treating rhetorical flourishes as though they are intended literally, even
after having the flourish broken down into more "literal" speech, as you are
doing, is a positive vice.

Okay, I was using a rhetorical flourish. If it makes you feel good to
crow about it, knock yourself out.

-----HaHaHa......



But I note that you are not dealing with
the actual issue that flourish was being used to highlight.

----What was that again? I don't have time to review the postings.....




I mean, are you planning on paying commission
only? If that's the case, you're only going to get salesmen who
think
your
product is worth their time.

-----Well, yeah........

And how, exactly, do you plan to manage that? How are you going to
even
get them to listen to you about your product?

----I'm sure a clever salesman will be able to assertain whether he'd
be able to sell a product or not. We're assuming I have a viable
product of course. If I'm trying to resell a Pet Rock, you would be
correct, only an all star ,gifted salesman could do so, and they're
usually owners of large car lots.

It's not whether he can sell the product or not--it's whether he could
make more selling _your_ product than he can selling the products he
_already_ has.

----And, if he could sell *your* product...



Let me guess, you still think you could get out of the "ass kissing"
that's almost inherent in sales by just "hiring salesmen."

----So, successful buisnesses don't hire salesmen?

Try reading what I actually wrote this time.

----Sure. You said my buisness woud fold if I hired salesmen......




No problem, somebody will be able to pick up whatever assets remain
of
this hypothetical business and put it to work in a venture that actually
has
a prayer.

----So, you'd rather kiss ass than hire a proffessional? You must be
very, very good at it......

You are remarkably naive about what it takes to hire a good salesman.
Good salesmen have pretty much just about their pick of products to carry.
You're not hiring them. They're deciding whether you and your products are
worth _their_ time.



BTW, I work in a very small company--literally two people, me and my
boss. Most of what I have learned about running a small business has
come
from my boss, my _liberal_ boss.

----I guess even some liberals don't mind having their asses
kissed.....

And with a Parthian shot so wide of the mark it hits people in front of
him, Suds departs the field.

-----Wait, I'm back. You just gotta be more patient, Burkhead, some of
us don't have the luxury of
constant usenet access, i.e. we have to work a little bit.
We simple guys might be on usenet an hour a day or less, and I enjoy
the humor found in other venues.
It's certainly preferable to argueing with condescending windbags,
but, what ya gonna do?
And, since you claimed kissing ass for you is like breathing, that
shot wasn't so wide, now , was it?




.

Loading