# Uniforms and sensitivity of military personnel.



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Further to a conversation posted earlier today, I thought that this might be of interest. I'd posted it elsewhere originally, but perhaps our membership might find it interesting.

"Dear all,
we had a visit to my place of employment on Friday by the Navy and the Marines to, essentially, do a recruitment talk to our Year 10, 11, and 6th Form. As I had a free period (officially called planning time) I popped in to see what they were doing. The Navy representative was a female Leading Seaman, as far as I could tell, as rank badges weren't being worn, dressed in camouflage trousers and army type boots and a polo shirt. At an appropriate point, when she wasn't doing anything, I went over and asked her about the way she was dressed, and asked why the Navy seem, these days, to dress as soldiers, in their camouflage fatigues and boots. Rather like American forces people actually. Her answers were a bit confused and inarticulate. I said several times that I wasn't implying any criticism, certainly not of her, but was simply the questions asking in order to find out the answers. When I realised that I wasn't going to get a lucid answer I thanked her for her time and let her get on with the next activity with the kids, whilst I went back to marking essays. 
At the following break the Marine Corporal came into the staff room asking to speak to me. He told me that the Navy person was upset; that she'd felt intimidated and upset at my questioning. He told me that he also thought me and my questions intimidating. I explained what the conversation had been about, but he still thought that my manner had appeared upsetting to the girl.
Since when would polite questions, politely phrased, to a Leading Seaman be perceived by a Leading Seaman and a Marine Corporal as "upsetting" or patronising? 
My colleagues found it ridiculous! Intimidating? Being politely asked questions about her uniform by a teacher? How would she react to being shouted at by a Petty Officer?"


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

It's a disgrace.

Worse than the uniform mishmash, if the female seaman (seawoman?) is so easily intimidated, she seems to have chosen the wrong line of work.

Within a relatively short period, our armed forces, once the smartest in the world, have become almost indistinguishable from council dust-cart operatives. The same story applies to our police, all other servants of the Crown, and even AA and RAC patrolmen. It's a reflection on society of course.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> How would she react to being shouted at by a Petty Officer?"


How would she react??

With litigation, of course!!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Is the UK as litigious as the US? 

In any event, the answer she couldn't come up with is (or, at least in the US): Army, Navy, and Marines all want to look cool and camo is cool. In the US, there is effectively a cool-factor rivalry between Army/Navy/Marines to see who can have the latest, coolest uniform and the latest, coolest camo pattern. This one-up-manship costs the US billions. 

W/R/T her feeling intimidated, HA! Hahaha! 

On a sort-of-related note, in the Pentagon, it is kind of a thing for 70-year old men to wear their flight suits to work (at least in my experience). It is hilarious and also kind of sad. I think Toqueville spends some time there, too, and might confirm the same.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I do, and they look ridiculous. I know one RAF officer at the Pentagon, who does the same. They look like over grown children in onesies.

The new navy uniforms are stupid. Huge waste of money. The best thing for people on ships to wear is orange, as many navies do. That's what you wNt to be wearing when you fall overboard.

The good news is that more and more army guys are wearing proper dress uniforms vice camies.

The other good news is that young female naval officers look delightful in dress uniforn.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tilton said:


> *Is the UK as litigious as the US?
> *
> In any event, the answer she couldn't come up with is (or, at least in the US): Army, Navy, and Marines all want to look cool and camo is cool. In the US, there is effectively a cool-factor rivalry between Army/Navy/Marines to see who can have the latest, coolest uniform and the latest, coolest camo pattern. This one-up-manship costs the US billions.
> 
> ...


Not quite, but we are working our way towards a similar status.

This appaling notion that should some terrible event befall a person then a wodge of money will redress the balance. These compensation scroungers should be drummed out of town.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan (and others): Having read so many of your many past posts, I cannot help but note that your potential for employing an abrasive approach in a post and by association, a conversation, is well documented. I seriously doubt you were as laid back in the reported conversation as you claim. That combined with the fact that military members sent out on advertising/recruiting forays are frequently put on a very short leash, including fore warnings about becoming involved in what might be construed as public confrontations could account for her uneasiness. It strikes me that you sought out the most vulnerable prospect and moved in for the strike. Your little recreational debate over Britain's uniforming policies for Her armed forces, may have not presented any downside(s) and been enjoyable for you, but for that young female seaman, the potential downside(s) were very apparent and certainly very real. You sir strike me as a "natural born bully!" If not, why didn't you just invite the Corporal out behind the gymnasium to settle your disagreement?

I'm sure you will disagree with this, but this is the impression your actions create in my mind, and just as you do, we all have a right to our opinions.

PS: As the the older flight officers wearing flight suits at the Pentagon, the last I heard, the Sec of Defense office had issued a policy letter dictating that with US forces involved in combat operations, other military personnel would wear utilities as the day to day uniform to show support for those so deployed.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

A reflection from back in my Army days....I was pulling honor guard duty. We had just done a memorial service (3-volley salute, flag folding, pallbearers, etc). We stopped to eat at McDonalds on our way back. A man in civilian clothing asked me why I was missing certain insignia. I was slightly embarrased and admitted that it must of fallen off. I made my apologies and finished my meal in the transport vehicle. I was embarrased further when told to report to brigade HQ in order to explain my lapse of attention to detail (not as if they were looking for explanations versus vindication). Whatever full bird had called me out, had called me in as well. Was getting stared down by a sergeant major rumoured to have 6 confirmed e-tool kills intimidating? I thought so at the time. As a matter of fact, I so happy to no longer be his concern that the idea of complaining to his Superior never even occurred to me.

When I first entered the military things were quite a bit stricter than when I left 4 years later. My experience was that rooms were to be cleaned nightly and ready for inspection in the morning, lockers had to be arranged as to sop, each soldier had a right to 2 décorations on the wall. Military supply was used on all beds and for all furniture. Bedrooms were laid out as demanded by the Army. Single soldiers were called upon to serve duty before those married and living off post. This all started to change by time I was getting ready to leave. They actually had a single soldier union of sorts. I have to say that I'm happy for them. It sucked being single and living in the worst of housing with the worst of furniture, with the worst of food (and then to get a Knock on your door for last moment for 24 hour duty). I have no idea how this has affected the U.S. Army overall. I can state that when there was an accidental shooting in my unit that resulted in a few deaths (2004), there were no soldiers crying on the national news. When the haywire Major killed 13 people in 2009, the "after-shocked survivors" looked more like a group of little pre-school girls compared to professional soldiers. Good or bad, I'm not sure. Part of me prefers a soldier that can control his/her emotions and maintains discipline in the face of tragedy (while maintaining a sense of moral correctness in the face of "illegal orders" of course).

Women in the military? Well what do I care? As long as they can perform their tasks as called for, why not? If a women wants to go front line and she can carry the heaviest person in her unit, sure. In my thoughts, she should need to pass the same tests and have the same scores mandated as her male collègues within the same military occupational service. I would think general testing need to be fair on both sexes as well... Allowing women to pass the P.E. test with 20 push ups while males have to do 42 is just wrong. Keep it equal & keep it to the point that people are in the position to do the job as called for. The military is dangerous enough, putting a timid woman in a position only because she's a woman doesn't justify the danger she places on others when she can't perform as needed. Mind, body, and spirit must be able to match the duties called for.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

tocqueville said:


> The good news is that more and more army guys are wearing proper dress uniforms vice camies.


I work for the Army and have been noticing this as well. To my understanding, it has a lot to do with Soldiers slowly adapting to garrison life.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ... It strikes me that you sought out the most vulnerable prospect and moved in for the strike. Your little recreational debate over Britain's uniforming policies for Her armed forces, may have not presented any downside(s) and been enjoyable for you, but for that young female seaman, the potential downside(s) were very apparent and certainly very real. You sir strike me as a "natural born bully!" If not, why didn't you just invite the Corporal out behind the gymnasium to settle your disagreement?


If Chouan really was bullying the rating (although such is not clear from his own account earlier), then shame on him. Nevertheless, there is an argument that those entering the services need to be of a reasonably robust temperamental disposition, such that they can respond in such a situation without feeling intimidated or victimised - otherwise, how might they behave in the heat of conflict? By sulking and feeling sorry for themselves?

Your suggested course of action for dealing with the Corporal made me smile, although how such an approach in a school situation would have played out is anyone's guess!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> PS: As the the older flight officers wearing flight suits at the Pentagon, the last I heard, the Sec of Defense office had issued a policy letter dictating that with US forces involved in combat operations, other military personnel would wear utilities as the day to day uniform to show support for those so deployed.


That is correct, although I think the letter dates the Rumsfeld era. The wearing of flight suits on a day to day basis by men and women who go no where near aircraft seems to be taking it a bit far, but who am I to challenge anyone's right to wear onesies to work? The RAF guy I met told me that "it's comfortable." I bet it is. That said, I know one Marine pilot who refuses because "it's ridiculous."

Re: sensitive recruits, today's militaries have a hard time walking the tight rope between being suitably "tough" for the requirements of the service while being suitably "nice" to attract and retain soldiers. I would have assumed that the UK's forces are on the "tough" end of that spectrum, and I'd certainly expect Royal Marines to be diamond hard. But maybe not. At the opposite end are the Germans, who think they need to pamper their troops now that they're moving to an all-volunteer force. They encourage the lower ranks to speak up and complain every time they get yelled at.

Gone are the days when the RN's hands, many pressed into service, would gladly subsist on salted horse and grog and bravely face the 'cat when found to be insubordinate by 15-yr old mids.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Responding to post #10)
Back in the late 1960's I was featured on a recruiting poster for the USAF and actually accompanied Recruiters on a number of school visits during which they were targeting candidates for accession into the ROTC and OTS commissioning programs. They thought having the officer pictured on the poster, sitting or standing behind the recruiting table would have a positive effect. In most cases it did, but on one such visit there were a couple of teachers (who were apparently anti-war activists on the side) literally spit on my poster. Please note, they did not spit on me, but rather on my picture and with their words made it clear that my presence disgusted them. The schools had invited us to participate in those career fairs/college recruiting events and I hope most would conclude that those teachers were out of line. Chouan's actions strike me as that kind of interaction. That unfortunate seaman was simply wearing the uniform she was ordered to that day and probably had no idea why her commander said to do so!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Responding to post #10)
> Back in the late 1960's I was featured on a recruiting poster for the USAF and actually accompanied Recruiters on a number of school visits during which they were targeting candidates for accession into the ROTC and OTS commissioning programs. They thought having the officer pictured on the poster, sitting or standing behind the recruiting table would have a positive effect. In most cases it did, but on one such visit there were a couple of teachers (who were apparently anti-war activists on the side) literally spit on my poster. Please note, they did not spit on me, but rather on my picture and with their words made it clear that my presence disgusted them. The schools had invited us to participate in those career fairs/college recruiting events and I hope most would conclude that those teachers were out of line. Chouan's actions strike me as that kind of interaction. That unfortunate seaman was simply wearing the uniform she was ordered to that day and probably had no idea why her commander said to do so!


That behaviour must have been very hard to put up with - disgusting in fact, and doubly unacceptable considering they were teachers.

At my own school, quite a few of the teachers had done national service (a few had seen service in Korea, Aden, Malaya and even in Kenya) and naturally they were highly popular as it was always easy to divert them from algebra or whatever to their war stories. Recruitment by the services was well supported and the sort of incident you experienced would have been almost unthinkable then.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> If Chouan really was bullying the rating (although such is not clear from his own account earlier), then shame on him.


I certainly wasn't, I was being as polite and friendly as I always am to any visitor to the school, or indeed, anybody else. On the other hand, if I had been rude and patronising, I would still have been surprised by the reaction.



Langham said:


> Nevertheless, there is an argument that those entering the services need to be of a reasonably robust temperamental disposition, such that they can respond in such a situation without feeling intimidated or victimised - otherwise, how might they behave in the heat of conflict? By sulking and feeling sorry for themselves?


Quite. If I had been rude and aggressive, which I wasn't, I would have expected a bit more resilience from people sent into schools to represent the Navy and the Royals.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Responding to post #10)
> Back in the late 1960's I was featured on a recruiting poster for the USAF and actually accompanied Recruiters on a number of school visits during which they were targeting candidates for accession into the ROTC and OTS commissioning programs. They thought having the officer pictured on the poster, sitting or standing behind the recruiting table would have a positive effect. In most cases it did, but on one such visit there were a couple of teachers (who were apparently anti-war activists on the side) literally spit on my poster. Please note, they did not spit on me, but rather on my picture and with their words made it clear that my presence disgusted them. The schools had invited us to participate in those career fairs/college recruiting events and I hope most would conclude that those teachers were out of line. Chouan's actions strike me as that kind of interaction. That unfortunate seaman was simply wearing the uniform she was ordered to that day and probably had no idea why her commander said to do so!


Perhaps the unpleasant behaviour of those teachers has had something of an influence on your opinion of teachers in general?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Chouan (and others): Having read so many of your many past posts, I cannot help but note that your potential for employing an abrasive approach in a post and by association, a conversation, is well documented. I seriously doubt you were as laid back in the reported conversation as you claim.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it is without foundation! I'd like to see how you've reached your conclusions though, just out of interest, you understand.



eagle2250 said:


> You sir strike me as a "natural born bully!"


Based on what?



eagle2250 said:


> If not, why didn't you just invite the Corporal out behind the gymnasium to settle your disagreement?


And what would that have achieved? Apart from the doubtful morality of such a thing, which, I suppose, may be common in the US armed forces, the desirability of a 57 year old teacher challenging a 20 something Royal Marine to fisticuffs would, from my point of view, be limited. Further, I'm not sure that brawling between a Bootie other rank and a retired RNR Lieutenant is quite the thing. Again, perhaps that kind of thing is more widespread in the US armed forces, although my personal experience of the US Navy would suggest otherwise.



eagle2250 said:


> I'm sure you will disagree with this, but this is the impression your actions create in my mind, and just as you do, we all have a right to our opinions.


Yes. Impressions of people gained without foundation is usually termed as "prejudice".

My own view, for what its worth, is that the Bootie was being rather overly protective, shall we say, for his own reasons, which are, I think, fairly obvious.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I do, and they look ridiculous. I know one RAF officer at the Pentagon, who does the same. They look like over grown children in onesies.


So you stared him down and asked him,

"What kind of suit do you call that, fella?"


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^(In response to post #16)

Chouan: I will try to answer your questions in the order they were asked.

!. How did I reach my conclusions?

The personal behavior you describe is not credible given the consistently aggressive and and arguably even combative debating approach you typically exhibit within the confines of these fora. Specifically the Interchange. That is not offered as a criticism, but rather as an observation and as has been said, "leopards do not change their spots. The claim that you approached the young seaman and "politely asked her questions about her uniform." while repeatedly reassuring her that you were not criticizing her, but rather were genuinely interested in her uniforming choices is just not a believable scenario, given your past behaviors...at least, not to me. If such were the case, she would not have gotten so defensive/upset and reported the incident to her team leader and the Corporal would not have found it necessary to confirm her conclusions with his own. People, even young seamen and marine Corporals get defensive when they are attacked! Taking the analysis a step further, if your original intent was as innocent as you claim it to be, why did you find it necessary to proceed to crow about your intimidation of the young seaman and corporal to your fellow teachers and even going so far as to attempt to regale the AAAC membership with your prowess as 'one bad ass inquisitor!' Having retired from the Royal Navy, you were well aware that that young, female seaman had nothing to do with establishing uniforming policies. When you strip away all the BS, what really is there to crow about? Your behavior strikes me as that of a typical school yard bully, crowing to his Toadies about how tough he is. 

I am reminded of that old story about a frog seeing a scorpion that had been washed into a stream and was drowning. The frog jumped into the water, swam to the scorpion and said jump on my back and I will return you to the stream bank. The scorpion jumped on the frogs back and proceeded with it's tail to sting the frog. With the effects of the scorpion's venom taking effect and realizing he and the scorpion were both about to drown, the frog looked at the scorpion, asking "why?" The scorpion's reply was, "it's my nature!" My friend, we are all largely prisoners of our respective basic natures.

2. Do I perhaps dislike teachers because of an incident that occurred in the late 1960's?

Lord I hope not. Our oldest daughter is a high school English teacher, who recently completed a masters degree that allowed her to expand into special education, because she felt those more challenged students deserved a better shot at a decent education that that which is frequently available. Our other daughter is a cardiac care nurse and I share that with you simply because I am prone to brag about my kids. Getting back to my fondness for teachers, in a sense I was one at various points in my life, serving on the faculties of two junior colleges and three four year institutions, in pat time capacities. So no, I do not harbor a dislike for teachers, but in all honesty, I do sometimes dislike individuals.

3. Would have it made any sense for you to go out behind the gymnasium with the Royal Marine Corporal to settle your differences?

First, morality has nothing to do with this hypothetical scenario. Second, it makes about as much sense as a retired Royal Navy Lieutenant and a retired USAF Colonel arguing about it on an Internet clothing forum! No offense intended, but just offering my thoughts!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(In response to post #16)
> 
> Chouan: I will try to answer your questions in the order they were asked.
> 
> ...


I would suggest that what you described as abrasive and you describe here as consistently aggressive and combative, is your response to being contradicted, not merely contradicted but proven wrong on some occasions. Some people find that being proven wrong in their opinions by the presentation of evidence is annoying and they often respond, perhaps naturally, with a dislike of the person proving them wrong rather than considering, or reconsidering, their opinion.



eagle2250 said:


> The claim that you approached the young seaman and "politely asked her questions about her uniform." while repeatedly reassuring her that you were not criticizing her, but rather were genuinely interested in her uniforming choices is just not a believable scenario, given your past behaviors...at least, not to me. If such were the case, she would not have gotten so defensive/upset and reported the incident to her team leader and the Corporal would not have found it necessary to confirm her conclusions with his own. People, even young seamen and marine Corporals get defensive when they are attacked! Taking the analysis a step further, if your original intent was as innocent as you claim it to be, why did you find it necessary to proceed to crow about your intimidation of the young seaman and corporal to your fellow teachers and even going so far as to attempt to regale the AAAC membership with your prowess as 'one bad ass inquisitor!' Having retired from the Royal Navy, you were well aware that that young, female seaman had nothing to do with establishing uniforming policies. When you strip away all the BS, what really is there to crow about? Your behavior strikes me as that of a typical school yard bully, crowing to his Toadies about how tough he is.


Curious how one's prejudices about a person can cause one to completely misread a situation. It was an observation, there was nothing to crow about, and I didn't crow about it. I would also suggest that you reread the initial post as you appear to have misunderstood what happened. My colleagues were astonished to see a Booty come into our private space and upbraid me in front of them.



eagle2250 said:


> 3. Would have it made any sense for you to go out behind the gymnasium with the Royal Marine Corporal to settle your differences?
> 
> First, morality has nothing to do with this hypothetical scenario. Second, it makes about as much sense as a retired Royal Navy Lieutenant and a retired USAF Colonel arguing about it on an Internet clothing forum! No offense intended, but just offering my thoughts!


Perhaps the annoyance at my perceived abrasive nature is due to your rank. That a junior rank should not only not agree with you but point out your errors can be something of a trial, especially when your jingoistic opinions are so easily dismissed when real evidence, rather than assertions and opinion, are presented. You are always very prickly about views of the US that don't fit in with your own, I've noticed, and always quick to make accusations of anti-Americanism. Perhaps what I can only think of as a chip on your shoulder about the US viz a viz Europe is one of the issues that has led you to your view of me?


----------



## FalconLorenzo (Aug 14, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(In response to post #16)
> 
> Chouan: I will try to answer your questions in the order they were asked.
> 
> ...


Amen, Eagle!


----------



## Larry Poppins (Jan 14, 2014)

"Young lady don't you think the uniform you wear is inappropriate? I mean it's so foreign looking and way too casual. Don't you agree?"

"Er, I'm really not here to discuss my clothing, and actually I think it's inappropriate for you to ask me about what I'm wearing."

"Why so sensitive? It's no wonder our country is in decline with the likes of you on duty."

Or at least that's how I read the original post.
+1 Eagle


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Larry Poppins said:


> "Young lady don't you think the uniform you wear is inappropriate? I mean it's so foreign looking and way too casual. Don't you agree?"
> 
> "Er, I'm really not here to discuss my clothing, and actually I think it's inappropriate for you to ask me about what I'm wearing."
> 
> ...


Please feel free to allow your prejudices to influence your understanding. Please feel free to use your imagination, equally freely, to invent a conversation that fits most exactly with your preconceived ideas of what happened.
It's not the truth, but don't let that get in the way. Indeed, neither should the fact that you missed the point of the post entirely, as did Eagle, get in the way of your perception of the incident. Perhaps I'll put it down to my lack of narrative writing skills, rather than a member's obvious dislike influencing new members.
I suggest that you look at the previous disagreements between Eagle and myself to gain an understanding of the context of his response.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

FalconLorenzo said:


> Amen, Eagle!


See my previous post. You can ignore the bits that don't apply to you.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Frankly, I am rather surprised that some people seem able to extrapolate such devious motivations from what appears to me as a fairly innocuous post.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Frankly, I am rather surprised that some people seem able to extrapolate such devious motivations from what appears to me as a fairly innocuous post.


I also am surprised. However, I wonder whether there might not be an element of cross-cultural misinterpretation at play also? Perhaps the US military never adopted the sort of sergeant-major parade-ground bawling-out regime that, traditionally, has always been so important a part of the British martial tradition? It's purpose, of course, is to make recruits impervious to the sort of 'bullying' that Eagle seems to have perceived in the original post. But I am still perplexed by the rating's reaction - perhaps she missed out that vital bit of naval training, somehow?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> I also am surprised. However, I wonder whether there might not be an element of cross-cultural misinterpretation at play also? Perhaps the US military never adopted the sort of sergeant-major parade-ground bawling-out regime that, traditionally, has always been so important a part of the British martial tradition? It's purpose, of course, is to make recruits impervious to the sort of 'bullying' that Eagle seems to have perceived in the original post. But I am still perplexed by the rating's reaction - perhaps she missed out that vital bit of naval training, somehow?


I sincerely hope that it is a measure of crosss-cultural misinterpretation, as you generously suggest Langham.

The 'sergeant major bawling out' routine does make its appearance in several American military movies, though, so presumably it exists? Or am I excessively naive here? :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

As I suggested in my initial post, the rating and I parted amicably, I thought. I thanked her for her time and she gave me no sign of being at all put out or upset. The first I knew of her being upset was from the rather, actually very, confrontational Marine corporal. Perhaps, on reflection, she wasn't actually very upset or feeling intimidated or patronised at all, after all, I could see no sign of it. Perhaps the Royal saw things differently; attractive blonde rating being spoken to by handsome, distinguished, well-dressed (of course) teacher, and came over all primeval and "protective".
"Was that teacher annoying you?"
"Not really, although I found his question a bit hard to answer"
"Don't worry, I'll have a word with him and sort him out"
"Thank you" (with the added "my hero" in the Royal's fevered imagination)
I really can't think of any other reason why he should come storming into the staff-room demanding to speak to me; it would certainly explain the "macho posturing" that my colleagues described him as displaying.

Anyway, I'll have to leave it here as my free period is over and I'm about to subtly indoctrinate some Y7s with my left-wing anti-militarist and anti-American views, or at least have them learn about the Peasants' Revolt.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Chouan: You really have a bad habit of playing fast and loose with the truth. Could you please provide us with the direct quotes from your OP with which you put the young seaman at ease or which would indicate that the Corporal agreed with you that it was all an unfortunate misunderstanding, after talking with you (a statement you have conveniently edited out since you first offered post #27). An then you proceed to attribute all manner of tasteless and unprofessional, perhaps even lecherous, motivations to the Corporal's even daring to question you about the young seaman's concerns. With a bit more creative editing of your OP, perhaps you can find those quotations and share them with us. Please do so.



Chouan said:


> I would suggest that what you described as abrasive and you describe here as consistently aggressive and combative, is your response to being contradicted, not merely contradicted but proven wrong on some occasions. Some people find that being proven wrong in their opinions by the presentation of evidence is annoying and they often respond, perhaps naturally, with a dislike of the person proving them wrong rather than considering, or reconsidering, their opinion.
> 
> Curious how one's prejudices about a person can cause one to completely misread a situation. It was an observation, there was nothing to crow about, and I didn't crow about it. I would also suggest that you reread the initial post as you appear to have misunderstood what happened. My colleagues were astonished to see a Booty come into our private space and upbraid me in front of them.
> 
> Perhaps the annoyance at my perceived abrasive nature is due to your rank. That a junior rank should not only not agree with you but point out your errors can be something of a trial, especially when your jingoistic opinions are so easily dismissed when real evidence, rather than assertions and opinion, are presented. You are always very prickly about views of the US that don't fit in with your own, I've noticed, and always quick to make accusations of anti-Americanism. Perhaps what I can only think of as a chip on your shoulder about the US viz a viz Europe is one of the issues that has led you to your view of me?


It is interesting to note that every time I or others disagree with you, you attribute such disagreement to "our prejudices." To the best of my recollection, neither one of us has ever convinced the other on any point of contention and as far as I'm concerned, that is OK! Given your arrogance and what strikes me as a grossly inflated ego, you assume your words in past postings have had a much greater impact on my psyche, than strikes me to be the case. No offense intended, but you do realize that this is Cyberville and most of us don't give the exchanges we enjoy in the Interchange much thought beyond the bit of time we may spend reading these pages. Many have argued with you within these pages, but I doubt any have lost any sleep or invested much troubled thought to the consideration of your words. Frankly, in my case I continue with the discussions to the point that I become bored with your rants and then move on to other things.

As for your assertion that I look down on you or feel any resentment towards you over a "lower rank" (your words, not mine) presuming to disagree we me, you could not be any more wrong in your conclusion(s) and indeed, your words insult me. The fact is two of the things I most respect about you is your military service (you stood your watch for your Country, while many choose not to do so) and you are a teacher in a (over here we call them) high school. Based on my experiences and on conversations with my oldest daughter, that is one of the most challenging jobs I can imagine. However, had you been a subordinate officer in my military unit, I'm pretty sure we would have clashed based on my perception of your disrespect toward enlisted personnel. Another poster suggested our differences in the present instance might be a cultural thing and perhaps that is so, to an extent. In the US military, at least in the USAF, officers are taught to lookout for the welfare and professional development of enlisted personnel, as well as of subordinate officers. If and when I heard junior officers speak as condescendingly of enlisted personnel as you have done, I would have had some rather unpleasant things to say to that officer. To that end, one of the most prized displays that hangs on the "I love me walls" of my study is a bayonet mounted on a polished wood plaque, presented to my by the enlisted cadre of my unit on my retirement. Only officers whom the enlisted cadre most admired were recognized in that way and from what I've been told a surprisingly small numbers of retirees are so honored. I like to think I took care of my people, both enlisted and officer!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm trying to figure out which one of these characters is Chouan, and which is Eagle2250


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

ROFALOL. Thank you, tocqueville and Shaver. I think we both needed that!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Chouan: You really have a bad habit of playing fast and loose with the truth. Could you please provide us with the direct quotes from your OP with which you put the young seaman at ease or which would indicate that the Corporal agreed with you that it was all an unfortunate misunderstanding, after talking with you (a statement you have conveniently edited out since you first offered post #27).


If you read the original post you'll see it there. Reading a post before criticising it is, you'll find, a very good idea.



eagle2250 said:


> An then you proceed to attribute all manner of tasteless and unprofessional, perhaps even lecherous, motivations to the Corporal's even daring to question you about the young seaman's concerns. With a bit more creative editing of your OP, perhaps you can find those quotations and share them with us. Please do so.


I was speculating, as you appeared to be doing on much less evidence.



eagle2250 said:


> It is interesting to note that every time I or others disagree with you, you attribute such disagreement to "our prejudices." Given your arrogance and what strikes me as a grossly inflated ego, you assume your words in past postings have had a much greater impact on my psyche, than strikes me to be the case. No offense intended, but you do realize that this is Cyberville and most of us don't give the exchanges we enjoy in the Interchange much thought beyond the bit of time we may spend reading these pages. Many have argued with you within these pages, but I doubt any have lost any sleep or invested much troubled thought to the consideration of your words. Frankly, in my case I continue with the discussions to the point that I become bored with your rants and then move on to other things.


Yet it is curious that your becoming "bored with my rants" almost invariably coincides with my presentation of evidence that challenges your assertions. It is also curious that your American jingoistic assertions appear, to you, to be reasonable posts, but that my refutation of your often ill conceived and inaccurate assertions, using evidence, are "rants". It is a very common response, in real life as well as in the cyberworld, to attack the presenters of arguments when one isn't able to challenge the arguments. You're very good at that. As far as the use of "prejudices" are concerned, I'm being charitable. I am assuming that continuing to hold an irrational view that has been disproved, or presenting an assertion based on no evidence is based on prejudice, rather than being based on ignorance or weakness of intellect, and I'm sure that you aren't in the latter category. For all that you don't give these forums a lot of thought, you've certainly given a lot of thought to, what I can only describe as your hostility to me. Perhaps I should feel honoured that you've devoted so many words to a person that you so clearly don't like!



eagle2250 said:


> As for your assertion that I look down on you or feel any resentment towards you over a "lower rank" (your words, not mine) presuming to disagree we me, you could not be any more wrong in your conclusion(s) and indeed, your words insult me.


Then I apologise. I was seeking to understand why you would invariably take such an oppositional stance to my posts, and such a hostile view of me as a person, and thought that it might be an explanation. There must be some other reason as to why you find my disagreeing with your views so annoying.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^


That one kills me!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Look, my graduation from Basic Training was caught on video! (I'm the guy with the red bandana).


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I'm trying to figure out which one of these characters is Chouan, and which is Eagle2250


None of them, thank God! Not a pongo, and certainly not a Grenadier!
I certainly enjoyed the clip though!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> None of them, thank God! Not a pongo, and certainly not a Grenadier!


Pongo?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> If you read the original post you'll see it there. Reading a post before criticising it is, you'll find, a very good idea.
> 
> I was speculating, as you appeared to be doing on much less evidence.
> 
> ...


....and once again, you haven't proven a damn thing other than your adeptness at sidestepping or simply ignoring the details of points made by the other party. I will not presume to speak for others, but that is what I find most consistently disagreeable in your postings and what eventually bore me to the point I just move on to other things. When you have done me the courtesy of responding to the specific points I made I will extent to you that same level of courtesy. As for now, I'm over an hour late for an appointment at the gym. See y'all tomorrow!


----------



## FalconLorenzo (Aug 14, 2013)

Chouan said:


> Yet it is curious that your becoming "bored with my rants" almost invariably coincides with my presentation of evidence that challenges your assertions.


I've yet to see an example of this beyond the typical "WHAT? ME??" response of "it's just your prejudice against me!" Give it a rest.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Langham said:


> I also am surprised. However, I wonder whether there might not be an element of cross-cultural misinterpretation at play also? Perhaps the US military never adopted the sort of sergeant-major parade-ground bawling-out regime that, traditionally, has always been so important a part of the British martial tradition?


Army, prison, whichever!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Yes. Impressions of people gained without foundation is usually termed as "prejudice".
> 
> My own view, for what its worth, is that the Bootie was being rather overly protective, shall we say, for his own reasons, which are, I think, fairly obvious.


I trust the irony is provided at no additional charge??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ....and once again, you haven't proven a damn thing other than your adeptness at sidestepping or simply ignoring the details of points made by the other party. *I will not presume to speak for others*, but that is what I find most consistently disagreeable in your postings and what eventually bore me to the point I just move on to other things. _*When you have done me the courtesy of responding to the specific points I made I will extent to you that same level of courtesy.*_ As for now, I'm over an hour late for an appointment at the gym. See y'all tomorrow!


Good, as that would indeed be presumptious.
That would be a first! As I pointed out above, you're very good at assertions, but when challenged, those challenges become "rants", apparently, so you get get bored and don't respond. I'd ask you, and others, to refer to your posts on the "Banana Wars" as you referred to them, and your, and my, posts on "Dugout Doug", in which you regarded my suggestions that he wasn't a hero as "anti-Americanism". I rather think that the reader will make up their own mind, without your prompting, as to whether you got bored with my "rants", or whether you were unable to respond.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ....and once again, you haven't proven a damn thing other than your adeptness at sidestepping or simply ignoring the details of points made by the other party.


An example might help, otherwise this would be another unsupported assertion. 
Actually, for somebody who claims not to care, you are still expending a lot of words, yet not expressing much beyond annoyance.


----------

