What not to do on Ch. 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, this is not the subject of the thread. I did not call you a liar, I commented on your actions, saying that your post was rediculous and that you lie and spin posts for your own reasons.

This is not a personnal attack, it is a comment regarding your inappropriate actions, which of course continue to be inappropriate.


As a reminder, because I know I've already posted something about this, when someone disagrees with you or how you do things, it does not mean they are teaming up against you.

You information is dated. You are a retired US Navy officer, I will not deny that, and I think that service, especially in a time of war is great. I am thankful for that service. Please do not, however, use your experiences in the past to assure other members of this site that you are "up to date". You are retired, and not recently retired at that. Your past experiences are wonderful, but they ARE in the past. Do not discredit current officers, especially active duty. I would also not try to discredit a current cadet. I would take his views over a cadet or midshipman who graduated almost 40 years ago.

As for the "where did I spin" question, I will not go far into it, but in attempt to have you finally drop it, I am wondering when I "trashed women" in any posts. I commented that your stats were not current because they did not include the higher female numbers in the academy setting. That is not "trashing" in the least, but to say it is is a classy spin.


Finally, the SUBJECT of this thread is about the proper conduct of SWO or DWO on an underway unit. It is about what NOT to do, as well as what to do. Try to stay on THAT topic. Having started the thread, I think I am able to comment on the TOPIC.
 
Again, this is not the subject of the thread. I did not call you a liar, I commented on your actions, saying that your post was rediculous and that you lie and spin posts for your own reasons.

This is not a personnal attack, it is a comment regarding your inappropriate actions, which of course continue to be inappropriate.


As a reminder, because I know I've already posted something about this, when someone disagrees with you or how you do things, it does not mean they are teaming up against you.

You information is dated. You are a retired US Navy officer, I will not deny that, and I think that service, especially in a time of war is great. I am thankful for that service. Please do not, however, use your experiences in the past to assure other members of this site that you are "up to date". You are retired, and not recently retired at that. Your past experiences are wonderful, but they ARE in the past. Do not discredit current officers, especially active duty. I would also not try to discredit a current cadet. I would take his views over a cadet or midshipman who graduated almost 40 years ago.

As for the "where did I spin" question, I will not go far into it, but in attempt to have you finally drop it, I am wondering when I "trashed women" in any posts. I commented that your stats were not current because they did not include the higher female numbers in the academy setting. That is not "trashing" in the least, but to say it is is a classy spin.


Finally, the SUBJECT of this thread is about the proper conduct of SWO or DWO on an underway unit. It is about what NOT to do, as well as what to do. Try to stay on THAT topic. Having started the thread, I think I am able to comment on the TOPIC.
 
LineInTheSand said:
I am wondering when I "trashed women" in any posts. I commented that your stats were not current because they did not include the higher female numbers in the academy setting. That is not "trashing" in the least, but to say it is is a classy spin.
Click to expand...

Your position was that females at the Academy from 1981-1985 contributed to the disparity in career choices between athletes and nonathletes. How could this be? They could not influence at all the all-male football player percentages. That only left the non-athlete segment which they could effect. For your position to be valid, they would have had to decrease this perxcentage by not being promoted. You, in effect, with no evidence, stated that women drew down the non-athlete promotion percentages. I call that disparaging.

With the Ch 16 thread, I initially assumed an at-sea scenario and provided examples. You quickly pointed out that it was shipping lane situations to which you were referring. When I ponted out examples and reasons, you again changed your position and stated that you were referring to the high seas. I gave up. With each exchange, your anti-Navy rants increased which caused me to believe that perhaps this was not truly about ROTR, but some chip on the shoulder which you had against all things Navy. I cannot discuss things with a moving target incapable of constructing a coherent statement.
Therefore, I gave up.
 
And yet a SWO seemed to "get it". Maybe it's just too advanced of a concept. The lack of female input was supposed to be taken as evidence that the numbers are old and are not an accurate representation of what the academies are putting out in their respective branches these days.


Giving up may be the best course of action for you on this thread.
 
So, since you are unable to provide examples of my lying, we can all only deduct that, in fact, you are the liar here.

And before you go off on one of your convoluted side trails, a liar is someone who lies. The terms are synonymous.

Yes, I too am through with this discussion. It was fun.
 
I thought the "spin" comment I just supported would have been enough, but I guess that is hoping for too much. One lie that I'll bring up is the "Navy ships moving in and out of port is confidential." It's no new fact that CONFIDENTIAL is a classification, aka, you are saying that a Navy ship's movements in and out of port is classified. I wonder if the CICs understand that as they talk to port control about their future movements on a non-secure radio frequency. Moms and Pops can just sit back and listen, it's not classified. Please note that while I commented on your actions as "lying and spinning" I never outright called you a liar, nor will I still.

It will be nice having you off of this thread. Maybe we can get back to the purpose of there thread. Don't worry about commenting, you've already said you're done here, and I wouldn't want you to go back on your word.


Another thing not to do on Ch. 16...do not talk to your fishing buddies about what kind of stuff they are pulling up, how their wives are, or when they're going back in. Ch. 16 is for hailing and distress, the only time you should hear an extended conversation on that channel is during an emergency, when assistance is being given. It's good for everyone to hear what the problem is, and you don't want to risk losing comms while you switch channels.
 
Last edited:
LITS, it seems as though no one is welcome to this thread since we are either sexist, anti-everything, accusatory, or too young and immature. ;) Maybe one day we will meet, that would be a fun time I'd say! :)
 
LineInTheSand said:
I thought the "spin" comment I just supported would have been enough, but I guess that is hoping for too much. One lie that I'll bring up is the "Navy ships moving in and out of port is confidential." It's no new fact that CONFIDENTIAL is a classification, aka, you are saying that a Navy ship's movements in and out of port is classified.
Click to expand...

How can we stop this when you continue to present totally inane BS. I pointed out that your 'spin' was a correct assumption on my part. Again, you are refusing to address the subject. We are talking about your accusation of my LYING, not SPINNING. You cannot get anything correct, can you.

We are all aware that CONFIDENTIAL is a form of classification. I would not consider your attempt to make a misstatement a lie; however, here you are definitely spinning. Are you actually attempting to blow enough smoke to say that I am a liar because I made a statement that a ship's movement is classified information?? Stick with being a policeman. You have no clue what you are talking about.
 
USNA69 Quote:
"We are all aware that CONFIDENTIAL is a form of classification. I would not consider your attempt to make a misstatement a lie; however, here you are definitely spinning. Are you actually attempting to blow enough smoke to say that I am a liar because I made a statement that a ship's movement is classified information?? "

-I don't think you can really say this. The vast majority of the posters and members of this site are parents and applicants, many of whom don't know what classifications are. If you left it at a mistake I would have accepted that, however when you questioned my understanding of OpSec, something that you're 20 years removed from, that is when I view your actions as counter productive and an attempt to challenge my creditability.

USNA69 Quote:
"Stick with being a policeman. You have no clue what you are talking about."

Finally your true colors come out, apparently you have problem with the Coast Guard...which you will try to minimize the existance of by calling me a "police man".

Zaphod Quote:
"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."


-So apparently someone who IS in the know thinks I know what I'm talking about. That would mean I DO have a clue, and that clue is of RECENT OPSEC practices.


USNA69 Quote:
"Yes, I too am through with this discussion. It was fun."

-Apparently not, should I consider it a lie too or....


USNA69 Quote:
"LITS, please provide examples of my lying and spinning."

USNA69 Quote:

"Again, you are refusing to address the subject. We are talking about your accusation of my LYING, not SPINNING. You cannot get anything correct, can you."


Perhaps my inability to "Get it correct" arrises because of your inability to know what you want. :confused:
 
Last edited:
LineInTheSand said:
If you left it at a mistake I would have accepted that, however when you questioned my understanding of OpSec, something that you're 20 years removed from, that is when I view your actions as counter productive and an attempt to challenge my creditability.
Click to expand...

I may be 20 years removed, but I have more than 40 years of varius Navy experiences upon which to draw. I am also smart enough, unlike some, to know when my experiences are valid and when I shold just keep quiet.

It only takes a few minutes to research the Confidentiality of ship's movements. Apparently, you are partially correct. Each and every ship's movement is no longer considered classified. For example, short term local individual sorties. However, task force operational sorties and long-term deployments are. Hopefully, someone WITH RECENT NAVY EXPERIENCE will validate this and not base their position solely on what they have heard transiting Hampton Roads a very few times.
 
USNA69 said:
You and Luigi call me a liar.
Click to expand...

:screwy:

:bsflagsmileyface:

No, I called you a troll, and I stand by it 100%.

Internet Troll

An Internet troll, or simply "troll" in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion, a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Trolls delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll".

Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves.

:lolatyou:
 
Well then, looks like it's settled.


I would assume my being "partially correct" means I MIGHT have a clue. That would also mean you were wrong.

My movement reports go to the same authorities that a Navy ship's does. This is nothing new, nothing advanced. It is one or many collaterals.

I respect 20 years of service, however when that service ended 25+ years ago, I would go to that person to find out how things USED to be, not to ask them about current policy or SOP. That's not a bad thing. We all hope to one day be "windows of the past" for those current doing the work, even if some would like to classify that work as being a "policeman". Of course, we have quite a few policemen serving in the Persian Gulf right now, but I'll be sure to send them an email and let them know what you think of their service. I'm interested in what someone who was shot up on the coasts of Vietnam, or the shores of France might say about your "policeman" comment. They might have a few "salty" things to say that an airdale might not understand, however might get the mood of as the F-Bombs were released. Batteries Release!
 
Luigi59 said:
No, I called you a troll, and I stand by it 100%.
Click to expand...

In case you have forgotten, I PMed you to try to ascertain your problem with me. Anticipating that you thought I was incapable of providing valid input to the forum, I listed my credentials. You stated basically that anyone could be anything that they wanted on the internet, and implied that if my resume was correct, that you were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the inventor of the aircraft carrier.
 
USNA69 said:
In case you have forgotten, I PMed you to try to ascertain your problem with me. Anticipating that you thought I was incapable of providing valid input to the forum, I listed my credentials. You stated basically that anyone could be anything that they wanted on the internet, and implied that if my resume was correct, that you were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the inventor of the aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...


Internet Troll

An Internet troll, or simply "troll" in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion, a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Trolls delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll".

Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves.
 
LineInThSand said:
even if some would like to classify that work as being a "policeman".
Click to expand...
Don't put words in my mouth. The remark was addressed to you and to you alone. It is your apparent inablility and unwillingness to grasp the true nature of what is going on which relegates you to only the plebian roles of the USCG mission. You are not capable of going out and playing with the big boys.
 
I don't have to put words in your mouth, you said it yourself.

Of course you support it here with:

"the plebian roles of the USCG mission. You are not capable of going out and playing with the big boys."

Wonderful, thank you for your support. Some people just need to know when it's time to retire from society too.


Moderators, how long will USNA69 have the freedom to do whatever he likes?
 
Thread Closing

I am locking this thread because it has become something that provides no benefit to this forum. Although this is the off-topic forum the threads need to remain civil and this one has simply become a cesspool of negativity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top