The Closing down of a Thread.

[ang1sgt]

I just want to say that the closing down of the "Religion and Faith in Everyday Life " thread is a loss to those of us that participated in that thread, for it's original poster, and those that help to derail it. I guess they feel that they have won and are happy with their choice.

I am angry that something I am very proud of, MY FAITH, is far less important in these Forums than let us say my Political beliefs.

The blind faith that some here in these forums place in one person is just short of Idol worship. Why do these parties get the free ride when it comes to nonsense posts and one-liners? Why is it that these same people are the same one's that scream to others when it happens? Why is it that these people will see this and try to burn me into the ground because I am being honest and open in light of what has transpired here?

Yes, This saddens me to the point where I wonder if this Forum shouldn't be renamed. But that should never happen. I think we all need to STOP, take a breath and remember why this Forum was created, and then Thank the Gentleman that allows this Forum to continue and grow.

I thought the original post was a VALID topic for someone that has Faith and uses Faith in regards to their participation in the Military. As a First Sergeant that has served and has had to use the Chaplain Corps as one of his many resources and support networks, as we are TRAINED to do, I was happy to reply to the Young man and give him "MY" experience while I was in Uniform. I can think of no better response than a man of Faith responding to another man of Faith.

To Seminarian Tim, I apologize if this opens up another round of bashing on this topic. If it does it does, and I hope other people that have Faith will join in and express how they believe and how they use these beliefs in daily life. We are held accountable for our actions in life. I make these points early in the morning after a lot of reflection and prayer. I just have questions as to the Why of some of the actions of others here. I don't expect answers to these questions, I just wonder.

First, A Christian Man that was lost and re-found his Faith,
Second, A Retired First Sergeant that used his beliefs and faith in the Service of Man,
And finally, an American Veteran, Still Proud of his Faith as well as His Duty and Service to God and Country...

[SlightlyCatholic]

To Seminarian Tim, I apologize if this opens up another round of bashing on this topic. If it does it does, and I hope other people that have Faith will join in and express how they believe and how they use these beliefs in daily life.

My original reasons for creating a thread about faith were twofold:

1) Our military wouldn't have a Chaplain Corps if religion weren't important to military members. Therefore, I figured it might be a good idea to at least have a thread within a military forum to talk about it. It is fairly obvious to me (from reading the posts of TOP and others) that there are faithful people here, so I wanted to provide a place for all of us to talk.

2) I am a second year college seminarian, which means that in three short years, I may very well be a Chaplain Candidate for one of our Armed Services. I joined the forum to not only learn about the military, but to see if my unique position as a person of faith might draw out unique and valuable lessons from persons of faith who simultaneously wear (or have worn) a military uniform. My goal is to learn as much as possible about the integration of religion and our military, and the thread was an attempt to make progress in that regard.

I don't mean to make anyone feel uncomfortable by discussing faith. I figured that anyone who felt uncomfortable with religious discussion would simply choose not to participate in the thread. The idea was to provide a place for those who do believe while simultaneously providing space for those who don't. If that was a bad idea, then I sincerely apologize. However, I hope there will always be a place here at Grunt's for people to talk about faith because it is something I see as a very important dimension of the human person. I don't make the rules, so if the Moderators disagree, that is their prerogative.

Perhaps a point for reflection might be these words from the First Amendment to our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Is there a way to allow for religious expression here on Grunt's Military Forum while at the same time preserving the comfort of atheist and agnostic members? That's for the Moderators here to decide, and I hope the answer to that question is an affirmative one.

Thanks for your time everyone, and have a great day.

God bless,

Tim

[Javelin66]

I was disappointed when this thread was stopped as well. I thought that it was appropriate, allowed members to discuss a very important part of their value system, and showed admirable initiative on the part of a new member. In addition, it provided a venue for those new to the military or considering a future in the military to gain insight into the role that religion and faith has played in the careers of experienced veterans.

The stated purpose of this forum is to serve “as an aid for individuals researching the United States' armed forces.” If that is the case, then we should remember that we are dealing with aspirants, not recruits. With that in mind, we have to ask what role we veterans and other experienced members of this forum can best fill.

Despite the fact that some of us have been and still are qualified by our respective services to train or instruct on various topics in the military, I would submit that we cannot consider ourselves to be trainers in this environment due to a set of simple facts: We don’t have trainees, and we have no authority. More pointedly in light of this discussion, we have no tasks or skills to train, rather a set of values that we are trying to instill.

In reality we are informal leaders, people who by the virtue of our experience and training can coach, teach, and mentor those that aspire to be in the military. In that we are trying to instill a set of values, we are essentially trying to teach people how to think, not what to think. There are many ways to do this, but they all have a few things in common: Patience for the often flawed logic and erroneous assumptions of the student, and respect for their views, however misguided.

If our true intent is to help those with an interest learn more about the military, then we should carefully consider how we go about doing it. I’ve brought this up before, and was told that we cannot lower our standards. I am well acquainted with standards and their maintenance, and would counter that there is a middle ground between chaos and ‘zero tolerance’. Standards are effective when they are appropriate, clear, logical, attainable, and universally enforced. All the veterans on this forum can cite many examples of standard that were none of the above and led to the degradation of the organizations combat effectiveness.

I am involved in Cub Scouts. When we have a new members drive, a lot of parents ask what the program is going to do for their boys, and what the program is all about. I tell them that it really isn’t about boys at all, but about men. The Cub Scout of today is the Boy Scout of tomorrow, and that boy will become the kind of man I want running this country when I am retired. I don’t know for sure that the boys will remember everything I teach them in a Den Meeting, but you can bet that they will emulate the way I talk, the way I act, and the way I treat people.

[HairyEyeball]

The 'problem' wasn't with the topic, but with 'where it went' and how some members reacted to perceived 'attitudes'. Those who have been here for the previous iterations of the forum have seen discussions of this and other 'sensitive' topics, and there is no reason such discussion cannot continue.

It was the originator of the thread who requested the lockdown, and with the directions the discussion took, it wasn't a bad call. There is, however, no reason to not open a similar thread, but with the strong suggestion that any contributor pay more attention than usual to how the message may be read and 'interpreted'.

[mtnsldr]

With all due respect, that is the problem you saw.

The problem I saw was a poster tried to start an intelligent (albeit borderline depending on conduct) conversation on what could be a controversial topic. He seemingly got cut down for a purpose I still can't figure out. Subsequent "explanations" didn't provide anymore insight as to the origins of the first objection.

I'm sorry, I can't understand how calling a 19 year old Seminary Student an "amatuer philosopher" and a "post whore", and referencing their discussion (which others are participating in, and seem to be enjoying) as nearly reaching the "point of mental masturbation" is a constructive alternate viewpoint.

[HairyEyeball]

What you see obviously depends on where you stand. Everyone has their own opinion of where, how and why the discussion 'went south', depending on just how much of the 'peripherals' they may be aware of. Personally, if anyone here can claim to be perfect, I'm perfectly willing to walk away and let him, her or it shoulder the load.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Hairy made the "post whore" comment because I am the member with the most posts, and I really haven't been here very long at all. Bottom line: I posted too much, too soon. That's my fault. The part about my being an "amateur philosopher" and the "mental masturbation" comment originates from my questioning things like regulations involving the Purple Heart. Again, I felt like doing an ethical thought experiment into the regulations themselves. It was probably unnecessary, and I probably shouldn't be questioning military regulations. Hairy's critiques (the "peripherals") were deserving and on point.

While I am thankful that such offenses (if that's the correct word for them) were brought to my attention, what caught me off guard was the manner in which they were made visible to me. What I expected was a private message with a stern warning and a few possible consequences for noncompliance...what I received was a public proclamation of error. Personally, I realize that my actions warranted correction but I think the problem was in the way I was corrected (publicly instead of privately) and the medium used to administer such correction (a post about my behavioral defects in a thread about religion).

Hairy, you seem like you have a loud personality and that can be a great personality trait. I can tell that you have no reservations about telling people off in front of a crowd of people. I was always taught to "praise in public and correct in private". You don't seem to follow that rule, and that's your style of leadership as a moderator here on the forum. All I'm saying is that perhaps your critiques regarding my posting behavior may have been better served in a private message or even a profile post rather than in a "religion and faith" thread. Please take my words as a suggestion and not a criticism...all I'm doing is trying to get at the heart of why the thread went the way it went, and how we can prevent it from happening again.

[soccermark23]

I am the member with the most posts, and I really haven't been here very long at all. Bottom line: I posted too much, too soon. That's my fault.

I for one have absolutely no problem with someone posting a lot. Frankly the more people post, the more discussions we are able to have with different topics. The matter of an absurd matter of post really comes into play when the majority of a users post are of the brief "one liner" variety. An example of this would be responding to every thread with a simple "I agree" or "I disagree."

Posts like that add absolutely nothing to a conversation and make it seem like someone is just trying to pad their post count as opposed to making a good contribution to not only the topic at hand, but the forum as a whole.

I have always had a belief in the theory of, "Praise in public; punish in private." And I think that is something we as a community need to revert back to. Sure it is alright to disagree with someone and have a good ole fashion debate, but when comes to the point of calling someone out on something you have issue with, I believe it is generally best left to be done through the privacy of a private message.

[mtnsldr]

Seminarian Tim:

From all the posts of yours I've read, you've attempted to contribute to the forum in a positive way. While the volume may be large, the quality hasn't been low.

Sometimes this comes up on here where the "unwritten rule" comes out about people "posting too much." I'm not sure what the metric is that this is measured against, yet it continues to rear its ugly head.

HE, you can take whatever position you want, and your post there is ambiguous enough to ensure that you do not admit fault, and infer that I should go back to my corner since I am evidently not perfect. So be it. If you are unaccepting of criticism, well that's your problem not mine. However, since that isn't what you "wrote" you might make the argument that I'm just misunderstanding you. Regardless, it still does not address the issue at hand, which is what warranted the original rebuking of Tim's thread.

Mark: I tend to agree that discipline is best in private. However, there is also a need to publicly address the standards. In an example, if an officer walks past a group of Soldiers (or Airmen) who do not salute, an NCO will address them loudly and in the group to ensure that the message of acceptable behavior is understood by all. Similarly in this event we need to address what is acceptable behavior, especially since more than a few people have taken exception to the conduct seen recently.

[soccermark23]

Mark: I tend to agree that discipline is best in private. However, there is also a need to publicly address the standards. In an example, if an officer walks past a group of Soldiers (or Airmen) who do not salute, an NCO will address them loudly and in the group to ensure that the message of acceptable behavior is understood by all. Similarly in this event we need to address what is acceptable behavior, especially since more than a few people have taken exception to the conduct seen recently.

I agree with you here Adam, and your example goes along with my thinking. In public I'd saying addressing a group in that manner is alright, but on an individual basis, especially in the setting of this forum, the majority of the time it can be handled in private.

[Kiwi]

[QUOTE=mtnsldr;3996]

The problem I saw was a poster tried to start an intelligent (albeit borderline depending on conduct) conversation on what could be a controversial topic.
QUOTE]

The question and subject of the thread was never in debate only that there was no practing of the preaching.
This has been cleared up in the other threads.
I see no point in Dragging it out. Tim admitted his mistake, Hairy is accepted it, and all is over.

And if you don't like some poster there is the block function. Which works well might I add, for squashing muzzie like bugs.

[SlightlyCatholic]

[QUOTE=mtnsldr;3996]

The problem I saw was a poster tried to start an intelligent (albeit borderline depending on conduct) conversation on what could be a controversial topic.
QUOTE]

The question and subject of the thread was never in debate only that there was no practing of the preaching.
This has been cleared up in the other threads.
I see no point in Dragging it out. Tim admitted his mistake, Hairy is accepted it, and all is over.

And if you don't like some poster there is the block function. Which works well might I add, for squashing muzzie like bugs.

No offense, but I think if the issue were cleared up in other threads ANG1SGT wouldn't have had to start this discussion. Also, I'm not sure the block function is the best thing in these kinds of conflicts. We need to solve problems, not ignore them (or the people who may cause them). The objective of this discussion is to get at the root of the problem while also finding ways to prevent future occurences. While the incident between myself and Hairy may very well be over, what's being discussed is much bigger than an isolated issue: standards of behavior of posters, proper interaction between moderator and poster (and vice versa), and a general consensus on how to act when conflict arises on the forum between two or more members. Those are the real issues here, and they need to be discussed at length in order to make this forum a better place.

[wukong]

I see no point in Dragging it out. Tim admitted his mistake, Hairy is accepted it, and all is over.


It is interesting how people who read the same verbiage can come to radically differing conclusions. The way I read Tim's apology was his attempt to communicate his realization to me that his manner of conduct in the quote inside his apology was childish not that his personal feelings were wrong. Just as I interpreted his meaning in this manner whatever you or anyone else perceived is just as valid as my interpretation.:salute:

A thread is like a discussion around a table and a forum is a group of tables in a room. You cannot take your frustrations from one table to the next. Hairy in my opinion deliberate or otherwise attempted to pick a fight at the wrong moment or table. I found the conduct of both parties in this meltdown offensive.

[HairyEyeball]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but assuming you know the rationale behind someone else's actions - even someone you may think you know - is extremely unwise. You know almost nothing about me, my 'personality' or my experiences, in combat or in the civilian world. Rather than enumerating your errors here and further exacerbating an unfortunate situation, I'll let this outburst pass.

Additionally, you seem to be conveniently overlooking the point that you claimed to not have received three PMs I sent, allegedly including the one sent two days after you also claimed to have 'remedied' the problem.

You may eventually learn that sometimes, good judgment consists of 'insuring brain is fully engaged before setting keyboard in motion'.

[Kiwi]

It is interesting how people who read the same verbiage can come to radically differing conclusions. The way I read Tim's apology was his attempt to communicate his realization to me that his manner of conduct in the quote inside his apology was childish not that his personal feelings were wrong. Just as I interpreted his meaning in this manner whatever you or anyone else perceived is just as valid as my interpretation.:salute:

A thread is like a discussion around a table and a forum is a group of tables in a room. You cannot take your frustrations from one table to the next. Hairy in my opinion deliberate or otherwise attempted to pick a fight at the wrong moment or table. I found the conduct of both parties in this meltdown offensive.

Thats correct everyone views what is written differently, and thats the thing, we must allow for that.

So hence Grunts little button add a name and you get this ..


This message is hidden because Seminarian_Tim is on your ignore list.

Its a peaceful end to the whole thing.

And you never have the issue arise again.

[HairyEyeball]

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of people seeing only what they so desire, and ignoring plainly posted facts. I don't need the grief. Have fun, people.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but assuming you know the rationale behind someone else's actions - even someone you may think you know - is extremely unwise. You know almost nothing about me, my 'personality' or my experiences, in combat or in the civilian world. Rather than enumerating your errors here and further exacerbating an unfortunate situation, I'll let this outburst pass.

Additionally, you seem to be conveniently overlooking the point that you claimed to not have received three PMs I sent, allegedly including the one sent two days after you also claimed to have 'remedied' the problem.

You may eventually learn that sometimes, good judgment consists of 'insuring brain is fully engaged before setting keyboard in motion'.

I made the analysis I did because frankly, I don't see any alternate rationale and therefore made my best guess. If you want to correct me and explain yourself, go right ahead. I disagree with your claim that in order to evaluate an argument, the evaluator needs to know the finer points of the person making the argument. Am I expected to memorize a poster's biography here at Grunt's before entering into a debate with them? I certainly hope not. While knowing the person is often beneficial to understanding the argument, it's not necessary and can often skew the argument. The argument and the arguer are separate things, and for that matter, disagreement and disrespect are also completely different things.

You are correct in saying that I didn't receive your PMs. Perhaps you could have left me a profile message? That would have resulted in the desired effect without derailing a legitimate thread that had nothing to do with the conflict in question.

Let's call a spade a spade: A moderator with a complaint regarding a member's behavior voiced his complaint in the wrong way within the wrong venue. The member called him on it for legitimate reasons, expressed those reasons in the wrong way, and the snowball went careening down the hill. It had nothing to do with individual perspectives or the possibly controversial nature of religious discussion. The member apologized for his belligerence and the moderator has chosen not to apologize for the unnecessary interruption of a thread. That's the moderator's choice, and the incident itself is over. I think we can all agree that those are the facts, regardless of how we may feel about them. What should be recognized is that this type of situation needs to be examined with a proactive outlook instead of a reactive outlook. I'd hate for a new member (or any member, for that matter) to have to experience the trainwreck that just happened if it can be prevented. I have two suggestions that might help to prevent such occurrences from happening again:

1) The "praise in public, correct in private" idea is excellent. That would definately help to keep things civil around here.

2) I think both a description of what exactly a moderator DOES on Grunt's and a list of behavioral standards for moderators would be extremely beneficial, especially to new people. This isn't a new person trying to bring down the upper echelon of the forum, it's a new person suggesting that the moderators' roles be clearly defined so that the poster knows a) what the moderator does and doesn't do and b) what the moderator can and can't do. We're all subject to certain standards here on Grunt's as human beings conversing with other human beings, and I would hate to think that those standards somehow don't apply to someone who attains the status of "moderator". It's a simple measure and would probably clear up a lot of problems regarding the issues surrounding the current discussion on the forum.

Just a final thought...

From the perspective of a follower and new member to Grunt's Military Forum, I am much more willing to respect a leader who is willing to admit mistakes as opposed to someone who won't do so for fear of seeming weak or imperfect. We're all human here, moderators included, and we all make mistakes. The best teachers I've ever had were just as quick to take the eraser to their notes on the blackboard as they were to put the red pen to any of my work. Just something to think about...

Thanks for your time everyone, and God bless.

[wukong]

I made the analysis I did because frankly, I don't see any alternate rationale and therefore made my best guess. If you want to correct me and explain yourself, go right ahead. I disagree with your claim that in order to evaluate an argument, the evaluator needs to know the finer points of the person making the argument. Am I expected to memorize a poster's biography here at Grunt's before entering into a debate with them? I certainly hope not. While knowing the person is often beneficial to understanding the argument, it's not necessary and can often skew the argument. The argument and the arguer are separate things, and for that matter, disagreement and disrespect are also completely different things.

You are correct in saying that I didn't receive your PMs. Perhaps you could have left me a profile message? That would have resulted in the desired effect without derailing a legitimate thread that had nothing to do with the conflict in question.

Let's call a spade a spade: A moderator with a complaint regarding a member's behavior voiced his complaint in the wrong way within the wrong venue. The member called him on it for legitimate reasons, expressed those reasons in the wrong way, and the snowball went careening down the hill. It had nothing to do with individual perspectives or the possibly controversial nature of religious discussion. The member apologized for his belligerence and the moderator has chosen not to apologize for the unnecessary interruption of a thread. That's the moderator's choice, and the incident itself is over. I think we can all agree that those are the facts, regardless of how we may feel about them. What should be recognized is that this type of situation needs to be examined with a proactive outlook instead of a reactive outlook. I'd hate for a new member (or any member, for that matter) to have to experience the trainwreck that just happened if it can be prevented. I have two suggestions that might help to prevent such occurrences from happening again:

1) The "praise in public, correct in private" idea is excellent. That would definately help to keep things civil around here.

2) I think both a description of what exactly a moderator DOES on Grunt's and a list of behavioral standards for moderators would be extremely beneficial, especially to new people. This isn't a new person trying to bring down the upper echelon of the forum, it's a new person suggesting that the moderators' roles be clearly defined so that the poster knows a) what the moderator does and doesn't do and b) what the moderator can and can't do. We're all subject to certain standards here on Grunt's as human beings conversing with other human beings, and I would hate to think that those standards somehow don't apply to someone who attains the status of "moderator". It's a simple measure and would probably clear up a lot of problems regarding the issues surrounding the current discussion on the forum.

Just a final thought...

From the perspective of a follower and new member to Grunt's Military Forum, I am much more willing to respect a leader who is willing to admit mistakes as opposed to someone who won't do so for fear of seeming weak or imperfect. We're all human here, moderators included, and we all make mistakes. The best teachers I've ever had were just as quick to take the eraser to their notes on the blackboard as they were to put the red pen to any of my work. Just something to think about...

Thanks for your time everyone, and God bless.

Tim, It's time you let go of this thing. It's OK to let people know that you are possibly right, It's rude to let people know you're right too often. You have not learned when it is time to JUST SHUT UP!

We older folks are capable of an occasional mistake. Hairy, Top, Les, and many others have earned certain rights in this community that you have not. We in the profession of arms really do not give a tinkers damn what you respect or your opinion of "seeming weak or imperfect." We may not know each other personally, but we know of each other by profession. I'll be damned if this community will let you or any other 19 year old wannabe badger a seasoned professional soldier.

You are bright, articulate and committed. You also have the political skills of a hammer. Before you hit the post buttom perhaps you should save your work and walk away for a few hours to meditate. You certainly engage your mouth (pen) before engaging your brain.

Move on.

[StarLifter]

From the perspective of a follower and new member to Grunt's Military Forum, I am much more willing to respect a leader who is willing to admit mistakes as opposed to someone who won't do so for fear of seeming weak or imperfect. We're all human here, moderators included, and we all make mistakes. The best teachers I've ever had were just as quick to take the eraser to their notes on the blackboard as they were to put the red pen to any of my work. Just something to think about...



To note, Tim... one thing I remember about HE, and probably one of the biggest things I respect him for, is that when he is wrong and knows it, he admits it. HE's a straight shooter, and not you, or me, or anyone else on this forum is going to get him to 'play nice' or apologize for something he feels he was right in. The best thing you can do is let it go.

Also, keep in mind, two wrongs don't make a right. Considering you're calling him out here again, I think another apology is in order, personally.

-- StarLifter

[SlightlyCatholic]

Wukong,

I'm not used to a forum that automatically lessens the importance of one's argument if they haven't spent time in the military. I was under the impression that everyones's arguments were valid so long as they were properly backed up. Please forgive me, I'll keep that in mind when posting in the future.

Starlifter,

I didn't realize that Hairy doesn't have to own up to or apologize for insulting a member if he feels he's right. Are there any other moderators who have that privilege? Please tell me now so this silly business of asking for accountability from a moderator can be avoided the next time someone is wronged by the upper class here on Grunt's. I'll personally tell them myself not to bother even saying anything so we don't have to waste space on the forum debating it.


I guess the consensus here is that it's perfectly acceptable for certain people here to ignore basic tenets of human decency and respect if they so desire. It's also clear that who you are here makes you right or wrong as opposed to what you actually say. Again, I wasn't under those impressions and I'll be sure to keep those pieces of information in mind the next time I post. At least now it's been stated in writing on the Forum for everyone to see.

You want me to shut my mouth? Fine, you got it. I'll be sure to keep my posting to a minimum, agree with everything that HE and the upper echelon proclaim, and not say a word when I feel offended by anything said by the aforementioned people. I learned some very valuable things about this place in the last few days, so I want to thank all of you for a good education into how things really work at Grunt's Military Forum. As for an apology, I've apologized once already and I think that's enough. All I've been looking for the whole time is to be given the same token of human decency (a simple apology) that I gave Hairy. As far as I can tell, wrongs were committed on both ends and I've owned up to mine. I guess the reality here is that seasoned professional soldiers don't have to apologize to nineteen year olds for any reason at any time, regardless of who's right or wrong or what actions were committed.

Lock the thread, please...I don't think it's needed anymore.

[StarLifter]

I had to go back and read my statement, because for a minute I thought I might've put my own foot in my mouth. While that might have been possible, it was not where your post indicates it was.

I am not saying that you need to shut your mouth or feel that your opinion is worth less than HE's or anyone else's for that matter.

All I am saying is that since he doesn't seem to feel he was wrong with regards to how he proceeded, you're probably not going to get an apology for his actions or thoughts. Continuing to call him out on the issue is only going to serve to get you more upset, and probably cause problems with members who might feel that, considering what's been said, HE followed the right course of action.

For a seminarian, I find it interesting that you're taking this the way you are. I mean, don't get me wrong, but if I remember correctly, wasn't it Jesus that preached to turn the other cheek?

You can keep trying to fight for an apology, and in doing so you might eventually get one, but is it really worth your energy to keep a conflict present where there doesn't need to be one?

-- StarLifter

[SlightlyCatholic]

For a seminarian, I find it interesting that you're taking this the way you are. I mean, don't get me wrong, but if I remember correctly, wasn't it Jesus that preached to turn the other cheek?

There's a fine disctinction between turning the other cheek and letting yourself be stepped on. Jesus certainly did turn the other cheek, but he had no problem standing up for himself and his beliefs. As I've said in a few other posts...please don't think of the Catholic priest as someone who will simply accept any argument with subservience. I try to be as nice a person as I can, but I feel I have an obligation to speak up when I feel I am being mistreated. That's a basic human right, is it not? Like I said, I have the utmost respect for every one of you as human persons and military members, past and present...and I never wanted to get worked up or angry about any of this.

All I wanted was an apology for this post in the thread about religion and faith:

Or it can be navel-gazing carried to the point of mental masturbation.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that while 'outside' subjects may be discussed here, this is primarily a military forum, not one composed of amateur philosophers and post whores.

and it is very clear to me now that I'm not going to get one. So, if one of the Moderators could go ahead and lock the thread, that would be great.

[wukong]

Look kid, a military society is a hierarchical society. There are going to be many times when a superior or authority will tell you to sit and be quiet. No one is telling you not to post. I'm warning you that words have meaning and connotations as well as inferred intentions. Your post previous to my suggestion to shut up was directed at Hairy whether or not you conscientiously meant for it to be. You have not earned a right to discipline the active and retired warriors who populate this community.

If you want love, get a dog. If you want sympathy you will find it between $hit and syphilis in the dictionary. We don't mind hearing what you have to say as long as it does not rise to petty bitching and moaning. As I told you before, you are only responsible for your own transgressions. Every soldier learns that you don't have to fight every battle to win a war.

Just because no one responded to your suggestion of standards for Moderators does not mean you are being ignored or put down or that people have misunderstood your intent. It might just be that we have seen too many situations where "the lid was too tight on the jar." Stop taking every criticism as an insult. Just because you are told you can not do something does not mean you have to "kiss butt." There has been at least three members who criticized Hairy's original comment. Perhaps you should for once read, analyze and understand the protocol that we used. We expressed our concerns ONCE and then SHUT UP. This methodology is how our military society works. It will not change to fit your world.

Can Hairy get away with something that you cannot? YES. He like many of us has slept in a Korean rice paddy in February or an equivalent. All you've done at this time is live off the luxury provided by your parents. We who have done these things share in a brotherhood. You are joining us and not the opposite. Most of us don't care how much you post, but we are soldiers and we do care about how you address your superiors in either rank or merit.:mad:

I doubt the Moderators will close this thread as the last shoe probably has not fallen.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Like I said, I just wanted an apology for this:

Or it can be navel-gazing carried to the point of mental masturbation.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that while 'outside' subjects may be discussed here, this is primarily a military forum, not one composed of amateur philosophers and post whores.

but again, it's very obvious that I'm not going to get one.

What I find strange, Wukong, is that you initially told Hairy to stand down. You said:

Hairy, if you were any poster other than a moderator this might be acceptable comment. Back off.

Why the change of heart? That very statement from you clearly states that the post is unacceptable for a moderator. Why don't I get an apology? Isn't that appropriate when something offensive is communicated from one human being to another? After all, I apologized for my comment later in the same thread.

I still don't see how a disrespectful post like that is excusable just because the poster has more experience in the military than I do, as we're all human beings and apologizing is a basic human courtesy.However, I'll take your word for it. Thank you for the advice, it's very much appreciated. Moderators, please lock the thread once everyone has had their say.

[wukong]

That very statement from you clearly states that the post is unacceptable for a moderator. Why don't I get an apology?


What you are failing to grasp is that an opinion on my part in no way constitutes FACT.

Why don't you get an apology? Back when, I was of the opinion that you probably got less from Hairy than you deserved. But it is coming increasing clear that you do not know how the adult world works. When I retired after a 20 year journey thru the Air Force I was docked a half day of pay due to the way Leave was accounted. During those 20 years I lost at least 40 days due to mission requirements. Was I less than satisfied? Yes. Do I spend the rest of my days pissing and moaning about it?

It is an unjust world that we live in. When you get to a place like Fallugah, the A Shau Valley, or Bastogne and the world is going to hell before your eyes you will see very few apologies. Get used to this fact.

All my generation owes you is an opportunity. Make the most of it.

[SlightlyCatholic]

What you are failing to grasp is that an opinion on my part in no way constitutes FACT.

Why don't you get an apology? Back when, I was of the opinion that you probably got less from Hairy than you deserved. But it is coming increasing clear that you do not know how the adult world works. When I retired after a 20 year journey thru the Air Force I was docked a half day of pay due to the way Leave was accounted. During those 20 years I lost at least 40 days due to mission requirements. Was I less than satisfied? Yes. Do I spend the rest of my days pissing and moaning about it?

It is an unjust world that we live in. When you get to a place like Fallugah, the A Shau Valley, or Bastogne and the world is going to hell before your eyes you will see very few apologies. Get used to this fact.

All my generation owes you is an opportunity. Make the most of it.

Thank you for that insight, Wukong. It is certainly informative.

Can we lock the thread? It's served its purpose.

[Billyd]

Tim,

I have read and re-read that thread several times over the last few days. I have received a couple of PMs from other members about it. You took this:

Or it can be navel-gazing carried to the point of mental masturbation.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that while 'outside' subjects may be discussed here, this is primarily a military forum, not one composed of amateur philosophers and post whores.

as an insult aimed at you. I didn't read it that way. It was simply pointed out Grunt Forum is a MILITARY related site. Every forum has post whores as some people think that forum rank means something. Here, forum rank means nothing. Those of us who have worn the uniform look at the man (or in this case, the words of the man) and judge him by what we see. At no time were you, Tim, called any of those things. The other quote that some like to use to point fingers was a request for facts that a different member used to form a generalization.

Now, if you took those things as insults, then you have some growing up to do and do not expect us to supply the teat for you to suckle at. You have expressed a desire to serve in an unique capacity. We respect that, however, keep in mind that you have not taken either oath, yet. You have yet to walk the requisite mile in our boots.

As Wukong pointed out, those that felt the need, stated their case and then carried on. You have stated your case and now you may as well be talking to the desk because no one is listening anymore.

You have been given your opportunity, now do something with it.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Understood and acknowledged, BillyD. Thanks for that clarification. I would agree that I certainly do have some growing up to do and will make my best effort to do so in the future.

[SGM]

Now you all kiss and make up or you won't be able to come out and play in the sandbox during the next play period!!