What not to do on Ch. 16
- Thread starter LineInTheSand
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
^^^^^^
The pot calling the kettle black. Some things never change.
The pot calling the kettle black. Some things never change.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 196
Just finished reading a very important document.
CNO, Gary Roughead, promulgated to the fleet late last fall, a complete revision Maritime Strategy entitled Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.
It really sets forth the change from the 80's Cold War doctrine to a focus on new threats including China, North Korea, Iran and the GWOT. In it he describes the need now for littoral warships to combat the threat of terrorists and other national threats to our country and their expected use of shallow draft, super quiet, submarines to infiltrate our sea boundries. Given the Navy's proclivity to annoy the USCG, how crazy are you going to be having these littorals zooming up and down the coast, banging away with sonar, helos ploping sono's and generally messing up the natural order of things?
Nowhere in the strategy did it mention the USN having to stay within the lines in the USCG coloring book. Must have been an oversight.
The Navy has over 220,000 enlisted personnel currently. I agree, they all are not Rhodes Scholars nor do they all have shinning gold stars for deportment like CG swabs. However, the Navy (and Army, and Marines, and Air Force) has a good record of turning bad seeds into good apples. Take for example a guy named Joe Campa. Mean streets of East Central LA, barely completed High School, chip on his shoulder, you know the story, just another Lenny.
Joe did well enough in boot to be sent to HM 'A' school. Did a lot of fleet time. Joined the FMF as a battlefield Corpsman. Progressed through the ranks and was a stellar performer. Today, with over 28 years of service, he is the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy. Joe's not alone. The vast majority of that 220,000 enlisted will leave the Navy as better citizens.
Must go pet the bunnies now.
CNO, Gary Roughead, promulgated to the fleet late last fall, a complete revision Maritime Strategy entitled Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.
It really sets forth the change from the 80's Cold War doctrine to a focus on new threats including China, North Korea, Iran and the GWOT. In it he describes the need now for littoral warships to combat the threat of terrorists and other national threats to our country and their expected use of shallow draft, super quiet, submarines to infiltrate our sea boundries. Given the Navy's proclivity to annoy the USCG, how crazy are you going to be having these littorals zooming up and down the coast, banging away with sonar, helos ploping sono's and generally messing up the natural order of things?
Nowhere in the strategy did it mention the USN having to stay within the lines in the USCG coloring book. Must have been an oversight.
The Navy has over 220,000 enlisted personnel currently. I agree, they all are not Rhodes Scholars nor do they all have shinning gold stars for deportment like CG swabs. However, the Navy (and Army, and Marines, and Air Force) has a good record of turning bad seeds into good apples. Take for example a guy named Joe Campa. Mean streets of East Central LA, barely completed High School, chip on his shoulder, you know the story, just another Lenny.
Joe did well enough in boot to be sent to HM 'A' school. Did a lot of fleet time. Joined the FMF as a battlefield Corpsman. Progressed through the ranks and was a stellar performer. Today, with over 28 years of service, he is the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy. Joe's not alone. The vast majority of that 220,000 enlisted will leave the Navy as better citizens.
Must go pet the bunnies now.
SubSquid said:
They are getting some good apples also. Just hanging around my son's squadron's maintenance spaces and having had the opportunity to take a couple of week-long tiger cruises aboard the CVs in the past few years, I can honestly say that I feel that the quality of our sailors and their commitment to excellence is as good or better than anything I have seen in the past 40+ years. Our up and coming USNA and ROTC Ensigns really have something with which to look forward. These sailors will train them well.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
SubSquid Quote "Nowhere in the strategy did it mention the USN having to stay within the lines in the USCG coloring book. Must have been an oversight."
You wouldn't happen you be refering to the coloring book that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) made, and the US signed into law....are you? Hardly a USCG coloring book, We just try to make it easier for you so you don't have to finger paint.
SubSquid Quote "CNO, Gary Roughead, promulgated to the fleet late last fall, a complete revision Maritime Strategy entitled Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower."
I hope you're not NOW just reading that. You didn't happen to see the names of the other two 4 stars did you? "Cooperative" may be the operative word here. Somewhere in there you'll find Coast Guard Commandant ADM Thad Allen. Given your "knowledge" of ROTR...exactly how can there be any risk of collision with a submerged US Navy submarine? Something tells me that "in sight of one another" thing probably applies...right? I'm not saying "in sight" by sonar.
Don't pet those bunnies too hard.
You wouldn't happen you be refering to the coloring book that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) made, and the US signed into law....are you? Hardly a USCG coloring book, We just try to make it easier for you so you don't have to finger paint.
SubSquid Quote "CNO, Gary Roughead, promulgated to the fleet late last fall, a complete revision Maritime Strategy entitled Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower."
I hope you're not NOW just reading that. You didn't happen to see the names of the other two 4 stars did you? "Cooperative" may be the operative word here. Somewhere in there you'll find Coast Guard Commandant ADM Thad Allen. Given your "knowledge" of ROTR...exactly how can there be any risk of collision with a submerged US Navy submarine? Something tells me that "in sight of one another" thing probably applies...right? I'm not saying "in sight" by sonar.
Don't pet those bunnies too hard.
Last edited:
LITS, since the forum appears to be flowing with unsolicited advice on how we should handle ourselves, please allow me to interject a small observation. While it is perfectly acceptable, and within forum guidelines, to make comments towards public figures, insititutions, and organizations such as subsquid's USCG coloring book analogy to illustrate remaining within the lines, your personal attack about diapers and finger paintings were not. Also, perhaps you did not read your fellow vigilante's opinion of calling someone childish?
I think both a retraction and an apology would be in order.
I think both a retraction and an apology would be in order.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
USNA69, your concerns are noted. I have changed the post to read that we attempt to help "not dumb down" so you don't have to finger paint. I will be leaving finger paint, to go along with the "Art" theme, since your shipmate wants to refer to US Coast Guard publications as "coloring books."
Also, I understand that you think there are countless people out there, organizing for your "overthrow", and that we're all plotting against you in PMs. I understand you think Moderators are against you too, and that while you may be able to say whatever you like about whomever you like, when someone disagrees with you, they're ganging up on you, as some kind of street vigilante gang. This isn't some organized effort to get you off the board. Heck, the first time you were banned I asked why, Pima asked why, there was even a thread about it...once you came back in became pretty apparent, and you sufficiently alienated many of the people who may have supported you in the past. Do I want to see you banned? Sure. I won't beat around the bush, I think you had something to offer, but you've become to aggressive to posters who don't agree with you. Would your being banned hurt the board? Possibly, you can let future Mids know how things used to be. There are plenty of USNA history books out there that future squids can turn to, however.
I know you think I hate the Navy, and you seem to love overlooking the fact that for this original thread, in my third post, I said that Ship #1 did it the wrong way however shortly there after, a second Navy ship did it the right way. The whole point of this thread was, don't do it like ship #1, act like Navy ship #2 when at sea.
No apology will be following, but again, your concerns were noted, and I have made some small changes, so as not to offend your sensitivies.
Also, I understand that you think there are countless people out there, organizing for your "overthrow", and that we're all plotting against you in PMs. I understand you think Moderators are against you too, and that while you may be able to say whatever you like about whomever you like, when someone disagrees with you, they're ganging up on you, as some kind of street vigilante gang. This isn't some organized effort to get you off the board. Heck, the first time you were banned I asked why, Pima asked why, there was even a thread about it...once you came back in became pretty apparent, and you sufficiently alienated many of the people who may have supported you in the past. Do I want to see you banned? Sure. I won't beat around the bush, I think you had something to offer, but you've become to aggressive to posters who don't agree with you. Would your being banned hurt the board? Possibly, you can let future Mids know how things used to be. There are plenty of USNA history books out there that future squids can turn to, however.
I know you think I hate the Navy, and you seem to love overlooking the fact that for this original thread, in my third post, I said that Ship #1 did it the wrong way however shortly there after, a second Navy ship did it the right way. The whole point of this thread was, don't do it like ship #1, act like Navy ship #2 when at sea.
No apology will be following, but again, your concerns were noted, and I have made some small changes, so as not to offend your sensitivies.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 196
I have really enjoyed the discussion about ROTR. Here's a dirty little secret of mine that I'll share with you LITS, but I don't want anyone else to know:
I've sailed on the Chesapeake since I was a kid. That would be many, many, many years ago! Until about 10 years ago I was partners with a friend in a 34' sloop. Unfortunately, he contracted skin cancer, and had to sell the boat. I was unable to buy out his share so I've been beached ever since (Except for the occaisional call to help crew for an evening regatta).
In all of my years of sailing, I've never breached a rule of safe ship handling. I've always reacted to the call from a CGAux, Harbor Patrol, or CG launch to heave to for inspections. I've always maintained proper PFD's and safety gear. I am the most curtious sailor on the "Peake".
Even when I'm the privileged boat, I will frequently relinquish my privilege, tack, and take a burdened boat's stern because I don't know how well versed the other captain is with the rules.
At the head of the Chesapeake is the Delaware-Chesapeake Canal. From that little slice comes all forms of boats and ships. I don't think that I once took my privileged status as a sail powered boat and challenged an intracoastal freighter, in a bow crossing situation, under 1000 yards.
Same deal down near Point Lookout. Wide berth and always take the stern. The reason I'm confiding in you this way, is to remind you that it is customary to give all larger vessels leeway, especially a Man-O-War. Your CO's advice to the mid watch about expecting the unexpected is a lesson about seamanship, alerting the watchstanders that anything can happen at any moment: Merchant looses headway or a rudder fails; sudden shifts in current and air, Crazy Navy guy needs to perform MOB drill. Try to believe me, that Crazy Navy CO is not intentionally trying to irk you or your crew. He's doing what is necessary to keep he, his crew and his command successful for mission readiness.
Back to my bunnies with a diaper full of finger paint.
I've sailed on the Chesapeake since I was a kid. That would be many, many, many years ago! Until about 10 years ago I was partners with a friend in a 34' sloop. Unfortunately, he contracted skin cancer, and had to sell the boat. I was unable to buy out his share so I've been beached ever since (Except for the occaisional call to help crew for an evening regatta).
In all of my years of sailing, I've never breached a rule of safe ship handling. I've always reacted to the call from a CGAux, Harbor Patrol, or CG launch to heave to for inspections. I've always maintained proper PFD's and safety gear. I am the most curtious sailor on the "Peake".
Even when I'm the privileged boat, I will frequently relinquish my privilege, tack, and take a burdened boat's stern because I don't know how well versed the other captain is with the rules.
At the head of the Chesapeake is the Delaware-Chesapeake Canal. From that little slice comes all forms of boats and ships. I don't think that I once took my privileged status as a sail powered boat and challenged an intracoastal freighter, in a bow crossing situation, under 1000 yards.
Same deal down near Point Lookout. Wide berth and always take the stern. The reason I'm confiding in you this way, is to remind you that it is customary to give all larger vessels leeway, especially a Man-O-War. Your CO's advice to the mid watch about expecting the unexpected is a lesson about seamanship, alerting the watchstanders that anything can happen at any moment: Merchant looses headway or a rudder fails; sudden shifts in current and air, Crazy Navy guy needs to perform MOB drill. Try to believe me, that Crazy Navy CO is not intentionally trying to irk you or your crew. He's doing what is necessary to keep he, his crew and his command successful for mission readiness.
Back to my bunnies with a diaper full of finger paint.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
That's good to know. I would expect many a private vessel to deviate from the rules. In fact, it is expected on my ship. I've made the C&D Canal transit, which is right up there with CC Canal as "fun". What I expect of a private vessel and what I expect out of the professional mariner fleet of the US Navy, are two very different things. There is also a difference between a 30' + private sail boat and a deep draft, a Coast Guard cutter, or a US Navy ship. While the law of gross tonnage is readily used by the private boater (as is probably safe), it will not apply when a 270' Coast Guard cutter is going up against a 500' Navy destroyer.
We make an effort to act early and often, so we are well outside of danger is a merchant vessel loses steerageway. I also understand that the Navy vessel engaged in MOB drills was not doing so to irk my crew, in fact I doubt he knew we were out there, instead he was irking the south bound, foreign flagged cargo ship (all outside US territorial seas).
What did irk me, and the watch before mine, was the situation earlier, involving a meeting situation between a US Coast Guard Cutter and a US Navy ship. In a meeting situation, under international rules, both vessels should come to starboard and pass port to port. When you call a professional US Navy ship, you would expect adherance to the rules, atleast an effort, and for the communication to be timely. This was not the case. It took almost 5 mins for the Navy vessel to respond with that their actions would be, and that was only after prompting by the Coast Guard cutter. Did I mention the Coast Guard cutter was also currently engaged in maritime law enforcement activities and was shadowing a few interesting vessels? After thos five minutes, with a proposed action by the CG cutter conn, the Navy vessel responded with "No, we're going to maintain course and speed." Ah, so the Coast Guard cutter changes her course and speed to open the CPA. This SAME Navy ship was the one that told a deep draft to alter course, which eventually put our CPA with the deep draft from 5 NM to 1.5. Imagine how happy that made my captain at 0100. Later in that watch a second Navy ship, (another LCS) made the right moves and was very professional when conversing and agreeing on a situation with the merchant vessel.
We make an effort to act early and often, so we are well outside of danger is a merchant vessel loses steerageway. I also understand that the Navy vessel engaged in MOB drills was not doing so to irk my crew, in fact I doubt he knew we were out there, instead he was irking the south bound, foreign flagged cargo ship (all outside US territorial seas).
What did irk me, and the watch before mine, was the situation earlier, involving a meeting situation between a US Coast Guard Cutter and a US Navy ship. In a meeting situation, under international rules, both vessels should come to starboard and pass port to port. When you call a professional US Navy ship, you would expect adherance to the rules, atleast an effort, and for the communication to be timely. This was not the case. It took almost 5 mins for the Navy vessel to respond with that their actions would be, and that was only after prompting by the Coast Guard cutter. Did I mention the Coast Guard cutter was also currently engaged in maritime law enforcement activities and was shadowing a few interesting vessels? After thos five minutes, with a proposed action by the CG cutter conn, the Navy vessel responded with "No, we're going to maintain course and speed." Ah, so the Coast Guard cutter changes her course and speed to open the CPA. This SAME Navy ship was the one that told a deep draft to alter course, which eventually put our CPA with the deep draft from 5 NM to 1.5. Imagine how happy that made my captain at 0100. Later in that watch a second Navy ship, (another LCS) made the right moves and was very professional when conversing and agreeing on a situation with the merchant vessel.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 196
USNA69:
Actually, mine was a Saber 32(I added 2' for the bowsprit and to make the elitists in Annapolis harbor think I was one of them!)
I don't seem to recall a 6'6" green troll in DB's, but there were some nights in St. Michaels, after much crab and too much beer, that I "saw" some really amazing things!
Actually, mine was a Saber 32(I added 2' for the bowsprit and to make the elitists in Annapolis harbor think I was one of them!)
I don't seem to recall a 6'6" green troll in DB's, but there were some nights in St. Michaels, after much crab and too much beer, that I "saw" some really amazing things!
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,925
As a former SWO, I agree with LITS original point, and I am quite certain that he is aware of OPSEC restrictions and the like.
In my five years driving ships, I remember very few cases where ROTR were grossly violated, but I think that has more to do with the fact that I never transited places like the Chesapeake Bay while on watch myself. I suppose if you hang around there long enough, you'll rack up all kinds of sea stories to share later.
ROTR are written to prevent accidents. It is therefore in the best interests of all involved to not only follow them, but to extend to other vessels a sense of respect and recognition that we are all in "the game" together. It's certainly a hell of a lot more civilized than the DC Beltway or the Miami Palmetto.
Navy ships, in general, have no special rank over other ships. Unless they are engaged in UNREP, or flight ops, or are not under command (look it up - it doesn't mean the crew hanged the CO from the yardarm), then they are just another powered vessel.
The training manuals are full of stories of Navy ships that ignored ROTR, or "eyeballed" the MOBOARD solution, or otherwise just didn't put 2 and 2 together (with a result of 4, at any rate).
When you get the chance to drive, don't screw it up. If you do, it's not considered a career-enhancing move.
Another thing that should NOT be done on Channel 16 is treating it like CB Channel 19. This isn't a nautical version of Smokey and the Bandit. If you want to have a long, drawn-out conversation, please SWITCH TO ANOTHER CHANNEL. First off, no one else gives a damn what you and your pal on the garbage scow upriver may be chatting about, and second, others need that channel to initiate communications before switching over to another channel.
Finally, don't say anything you don't want everyone within earshot to laugh at you for. It's not good form.
In my five years driving ships, I remember very few cases where ROTR were grossly violated, but I think that has more to do with the fact that I never transited places like the Chesapeake Bay while on watch myself. I suppose if you hang around there long enough, you'll rack up all kinds of sea stories to share later.
ROTR are written to prevent accidents. It is therefore in the best interests of all involved to not only follow them, but to extend to other vessels a sense of respect and recognition that we are all in "the game" together. It's certainly a hell of a lot more civilized than the DC Beltway or the Miami Palmetto.
Navy ships, in general, have no special rank over other ships. Unless they are engaged in UNREP, or flight ops, or are not under command (look it up - it doesn't mean the crew hanged the CO from the yardarm), then they are just another powered vessel.
The training manuals are full of stories of Navy ships that ignored ROTR, or "eyeballed" the MOBOARD solution, or otherwise just didn't put 2 and 2 together (with a result of 4, at any rate).
When you get the chance to drive, don't screw it up. If you do, it's not considered a career-enhancing move.
Another thing that should NOT be done on Channel 16 is treating it like CB Channel 19. This isn't a nautical version of Smokey and the Bandit. If you want to have a long, drawn-out conversation, please SWITCH TO ANOTHER CHANNEL. First off, no one else gives a damn what you and your pal on the garbage scow upriver may be chatting about, and second, others need that channel to initiate communications before switching over to another channel.
Finally, don't say anything you don't want everyone within earshot to laugh at you for. It's not good form.
Last edited:
I was kind of hoping that we were all wise enough to let LITS fade away into the sunset on this one.
Not so sure. The following seems to be the ramblings of someone who things that since they are going to find out anyway, that there is really no need to make it hard for them.
Unfortunately, you missed the ‘football’ thread where he trashed all things Navy, especially Naval Officers, specifically flag officers and women in the Navy circa 1985. Even though I served with these outstanding women, since my experience is more than 10 yrs old, he deemed me dated. Fortunately, he realized the absurdity of his position and deleted all his posts on the entire thread.
However, enough of the anti-Navy bias remained that you should have been able to pick up the fact that ROTR are not really the issue here.
And many others which he only left posted long enough for everyone to see and then deleted before running the risk of banishment.
It kind of reminds me of the young JO who takes over a division, and, incapable of evaluating what is going on, proceeds to pronounce every thing 'screwed up' and makes wholesale changes, at the expense of the enlisted who have already long been doing a fine job. He then makes fitrep inputs to the effect of all the 'improvements' he has made in the division. And what is really unfortunate, he is ofter rewarded for totally screwing up a well run division.
Zaphod said:
Not so sure. The following seems to be the ramblings of someone who things that since they are going to find out anyway, that there is really no need to make it hard for them.
LineInTheSand said:
Zaphod said:
Unfortunately, you missed the ‘football’ thread where he trashed all things Navy, especially Naval Officers, specifically flag officers and women in the Navy circa 1985. Even though I served with these outstanding women, since my experience is more than 10 yrs old, he deemed me dated. Fortunately, he realized the absurdity of his position and deleted all his posts on the entire thread.
However, enough of the anti-Navy bias remained that you should have been able to pick up the fact that ROTR are not really the issue here.
LineInTheSand said:
And many others which he only left posted long enough for everyone to see and then deleted before running the risk of banishment.
It kind of reminds me of the young JO who takes over a division, and, incapable of evaluating what is going on, proceeds to pronounce every thing 'screwed up' and makes wholesale changes, at the expense of the enlisted who have already long been doing a fine job. He then makes fitrep inputs to the effect of all the 'improvements' he has made in the division. And what is really unfortunate, he is ofter rewarded for totally screwing up a well run division.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
If I said USNA69's response was a surprise I would be lying. It was just a matter of time before he responded with something completely off topic. Now he's not only bashing other branches of the US Military and putting words in people's mouths, he's also attacking his own fellow Navy officers. I wish this was a surprise, but how many times have we talked about USNA69's inability to have people disagree with him and just leave it at that? Too many.
USNA69, even the off topic threads should stay on topic. Please refer to the beginning of this thread to find out what that topic is. The topic is not "Have USNA69 attack anyone who doesn't agree with him." Although this does seem to be your SOP.
It is unfortunate that after an on-topic post like Zaphod's, a SWO, a Naval officer educated in ship handling, his post is overshadowed by an off-topic, rediculous post by USNA69, lying and spinning posts for his own purpose. With the exception of an ensign who was removed for the Navy, I wonder which Navy officers I trashed, especially flag officers. Of course USNA69's quote of my anti-Navy rant was actually a response to SubSquid's assertion that USNA69 was just engaged in Inter-service rivalry. Regarding the "Women" comment, I was suggesting that USNA69 using numbers from the classes of 81-85 were probably not the best numbers to use, because they did not adequately allow for the much high presence of women that you would see in a O-4 board today, this is because women had only started graduating two years before the classes USNA69 used for he assertions graduated. Slanted numbers? I think so, certainly not likely to look like a cross section of today's Navy. Point of the comment, USNA69 claims these are the latest numbers for the O-4 boards, but there has been another whole decade of O-4 boards since the onces he wanted to use.
This has become a reoccuring problem. I just wonder when something is going to be done about it.
Purpose of this thread was to suggest to future ship drivers what NOT to do, and then of course what to do. If you can't stand that USNA69, I would suggest you create a new thread, with a topic you feel you may be qualified to comment on.
USNA69, even the off topic threads should stay on topic. Please refer to the beginning of this thread to find out what that topic is. The topic is not "Have USNA69 attack anyone who doesn't agree with him." Although this does seem to be your SOP.
It is unfortunate that after an on-topic post like Zaphod's, a SWO, a Naval officer educated in ship handling, his post is overshadowed by an off-topic, rediculous post by USNA69, lying and spinning posts for his own purpose. With the exception of an ensign who was removed for the Navy, I wonder which Navy officers I trashed, especially flag officers. Of course USNA69's quote of my anti-Navy rant was actually a response to SubSquid's assertion that USNA69 was just engaged in Inter-service rivalry. Regarding the "Women" comment, I was suggesting that USNA69 using numbers from the classes of 81-85 were probably not the best numbers to use, because they did not adequately allow for the much high presence of women that you would see in a O-4 board today, this is because women had only started graduating two years before the classes USNA69 used for he assertions graduated. Slanted numbers? I think so, certainly not likely to look like a cross section of today's Navy. Point of the comment, USNA69 claims these are the latest numbers for the O-4 boards, but there has been another whole decade of O-4 boards since the onces he wanted to use.
This has become a reoccuring problem. I just wonder when something is going to be done about it.
Purpose of this thread was to suggest to future ship drivers what NOT to do, and then of course what to do. If you can't stand that USNA69, I would suggest you create a new thread, with a topic you feel you may be qualified to comment on.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,957
This thread, begun with perhaps the best of intentions, seems to have gone to the dark side and some contributors are not following the General Posting Rules. This is a reminder to stay within the rules or this thread will be locked and members punished as the Moderation team deems appropriate.
- Do not post topics or discussions with the desire to do the site or the community harm. This includes creating topics or posts meant to disrupt the site's day to day management, member resources, or the ability for the site to function normally.
- Do not attack or insult a person in an effort to elicit a negative response. You have a right to disagree, but please do so in a respectful manner.
- If you are having any issues with the site or with another member, we encourage you to contact any Site Staff or Moderator via IM and explain the situation. We will always strive to be fair and consistent in resolving problems, but please understand that the Owners have delegated authority over the forums to the Site Staff and Moderators, and that their word in such cases will be final.
- Do not post topics or discussions with the desire to do the site or the community harm. This includes creating topics or posts meant to disrupt the site's day to day management, member resources, or the ability for the site to function normally.
- Do not attack or insult a person in an effort to elicit a negative response. You have a right to disagree, but please do so in a respectful manner.
- If you are having any issues with the site or with another member, we encourage you to contact any Site Staff or Moderator via IM and explain the situation. We will always strive to be fair and consistent in resolving problems, but please understand that the Owners have delegated authority over the forums to the Site Staff and Moderators, and that their word in such cases will be final.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
USNA69, we've already talked about this in PMs, but apparently you still can't let it drop.
You've had a Navy SWO comment on this thread, with no support for any of your comments. This may be a good time for you to discontinue posting on this thread until you can comment on the subject (please see FIRST post to figure out what that is.)
You've had a Navy SWO comment on this thread, with no support for any of your comments. This may be a good time for you to discontinue posting on this thread until you can comment on the subject (please see FIRST post to figure out what that is.)
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
You are unable to stay on topic. I would recommend you cease posting until you can get back on topic.
It should be very clear what the subject is here, and again, we've already talked about this on PM, where you were told to finally drop it.
I'm not suggesting you're too focused on "winning" but it might be time to move on from this thread.
It should be very clear what the subject is here, and again, we've already talked about this on PM, where you were told to finally drop it.
I'm not suggesting you're too focused on "winning" but it might be time to move on from this thread.
The subject here is that you have called me a liar. It is a personal attack prohibted by forum rules. Prove your statement. You did it on a public forum. Prove it on a public forum. Or retract your statement and apologize on a public forum. Learn to take responsibility for your actions. It is one of the frst steps in manhood.
You and Luigi call me a liar. Him because he wants to insist that my information is dated which will not allow him to believe that I am a retired Naval Officer, parent of a graduate and career Naval officer, active in the Navy and USNA alumni community, and a very successful BGO. When I point out my credentials, he simply says I am lying.
And then there is the young immature hornetguy who continually incorrectly for lack of any worthwhile inputs, insists that I am a bitter old man.
I honestly feel sorry for the lot of you but I cannot allow you to sully me on his forum continually attempting to dispair my credibility.
You and Luigi call me a liar. Him because he wants to insist that my information is dated which will not allow him to believe that I am a retired Naval Officer, parent of a graduate and career Naval officer, active in the Navy and USNA alumni community, and a very successful BGO. When I point out my credentials, he simply says I am lying.
And then there is the young immature hornetguy who continually incorrectly for lack of any worthwhile inputs, insists that I am a bitter old man.
I honestly feel sorry for the lot of you but I cannot allow you to sully me on his forum continually attempting to dispair my credibility.
Last edited:
- Status