On respecting the DS and respecting all board members.

[Michael Dorosh]

  In retrospect, my comment about "limp wristed Liberal fellatio fests"-while IMO effective at getting my point across at the PC attitude that is often prevalent here-did violate the conduct guidelines;

Define "effective".  Has anything really changed since you made your so-called "point"?

Besides, nothing gives an Albertan redneck more pleasure than telling some left wing Liberal pinko to go piss up a rope...politely, within the conduct guidelines, while substantiating with the type of solid logic that causes them to froth at the mouth with anger.

People who go around calling people with other view points names are the reason the country is in the state it is in today.  If you honestly feel there is value in telling ANYBODY to go "piss up a rope" and then expect any kind of meaninful dialogue to result - you are sadly mistaken.  It is unfortunate you don't have the first clue about effective communication (I have a degree in Communications, incidentally - you seem keen on presenting "credentials" here, so those are mine) since you seem so keen on insisting you know how to run this forum, the Army, the government, and apparently the entire nation.  I am a proud Albertan, and I support many of the policies instituted by the Federal Government, and even when I don't, I don't feel the need to call names.  Few people in the world act without reason; you talk of logic in your post, but fail to see that even the Liberal government behaves according to the dictates of their own logic.  Your inability to put yourself in anyone else's shoes make you a liability to this site.

The army is about killing people to defend Canada, not accommodating special interest groups who weaken the organization with their presence.

I think the Army is weakened by hot-heads with no ability to communicate effectively in the written language.  Yet we still apparently have a few of them around.

 

[big bad john]

You are asking for people to respect your opinions while at the same time calling them names and insulting them.  That IMO is a waste of bandwidth.  I am sure if you act that way to people in person, you are either shunned or have a good dental plan.  Giving people respect has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with their positions on matters.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

mo-litia,

We've now heard from all sides on the issue, which I think most will appreciate, though not necessarily agree with.

Mad Max was banned because he couldn't stay within the guidelines. He was given ample opportunity and guidance, but chose to ignore it. I think the mistake a lot of people are making is confusing aggressive behaviour with military pride. We're all proud of our soldiers, and we all feel the pinch when poor political decisions are made. It's important to recognize that there are more ways to affect change than simply "all caps" ranting.

My point: You don't have to be "aggressive" on the Internet to be considered a soldier. Your approach to solving problems or debating issues is not my approach, though both have their place and time. The Conduct Guidelines lay out what the unacceptable approaches are for this place and time.


Cheers
Mike

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

DISCLAIMER- PERSONAL POST ONLY                                [sorry Mike]

Well Mo-litia, I'm about as right wing as the law legally allows and I think that you are a whiny child who has to resort to using the same tactics the "left-wingers" use and then scream and cry when it gets tossed in your face.
You are the doppleganger of those you hate.

I NOW RESUME MY REGULARY SCHEDULED RIGHT WING MOD DUTIES!

 

[ex royal now flyer]

A military exists to defend its country from foreign aggression, not to be a platform for social experimentation in the name of equality.  

The army is about killing people to defend Canada, not accommodating special interest groups who weaken the organization with their presence.

Mo-litia,

Just a couple points.   I know nothing about who you are or what your background is so it makes it very difficult to address my concerns about your above comments.   First, the army, and the CF for that matter, is not about killing people to defend Canada.   That comment is totally irresponsible and perhaps something for the DS to think about editing.  

Last time I checked the military is an extension of the policies of the current government.   In a democratic society, government policies are formed based on what society deems them to be.   If society is not happy with government policies our elected officials are not re-elected and new policies are formed.   Thus, the CF as an extension of government policy has to reflect the ideals of Canadian society.   I have served for 18 years and served under both Liberal and Conservative governments.   Guess what??   Not much has changed.  

Society holds CF members to represent our common values and I look at it as an investment in their tax dollars.   Thus, if we are paid by the government we are also paid by taxpayers.  

I do not feel that I accomodate any special interest group.   As a professional member of the CF I carry out the orders that I am given.   If I decide I do not like those orders then I have the option of getting out.   If I do not like the direction government policy is going, then I vote against them in the next election.  

However, I never joined the RCR to kill people.   I joined to defend the values of Canada (the very same values that are lobbied for by the various special interest groups you refer to).   Am I willing to kill people? It is automatically inferred when you "sign the dotted ine".   However, I do hope that the policies and diplomacy of the government whom I work for will be effective before taking up arms.
     

 

[big bad john]

Mo-litia,

Just a couple points.   I know nothing about who you are or what your background is so it makes it very difficult to address my concerns about your above comments.   First, the army, and the CF for that matter, is not about killing people to defend Canada.   That comment is totally irresponsible and perhaps something for the DS to think about editing.  

Last time I checked the military is an extension of the policies of the current government.   In a democratic society, government policies are formed based on what society deems them to be.   If society is not happy with government policies our elected officials are not re-elected and new policies are formed.   Thus, the CF as an extension of government policy has to reflect the ideals of Canadian society.   I have served for 18 years and served under both Liberal and Conservative governments.   Guess what??   Not much has changed.  

Society holds CF members to represent our common values and I look at it as an investment in their tax dollars.   Thus, if we are paid by the government we are also paid by taxpayers.  

I do not feel that I accomodate any special interest group.   As a professional member of the CF I carry out the orders that I am given.   If I decide I do not like those orders then I have the option of getting out.   If I do not like the direction government policy is going, then I vote against them in the next election.  

However, I never joined the RCR to kill people.   I joined to defend the values of Canada (the very same values that are lobbied for by the various special interest groups you refer to).   Am I willing to kill people? It is automatically inferred when you "sign the dotted ine".   However, I do hope that the policies and diplomacy of the government whom I work for will be effective before taking up arms.
     

Very well said! 

 

[Tpr Parsons]

I agree, extremely well said ex royal now flyer. Cheers to that...   

 

[TCBF]

Mr Dorosh:  1. "People who go around calling people with other view points names ....

2. .... make you a liability to this site. .....I think the Army is weakened by hot-heads with no ability to communicate effectively in the written language.  Yet we still apparently have a few of them around. "

I see a small contradiction between the statements in para 1 and 2 above. 

In any case, hotheads can turn the tides of battles. "Follow Me!"  Has seldom been issued in writing in a timely and effective manner.  It's one thing to administer soldiers, it's another thing to lead them.

Many of us agree with the general sentiments of mo_litia and others, yet may state our cases differently.  Since this site justifiably prides itself on attracting a wide cross-section of those with military interests, it behoves us to guide those who do not have the benefit of a Degree in Communications, or Staff College, or fifty years on the planet, or whatever, to operate within a framework many find populated by the easily slighted.  If those are the rules of engagement, so be it, but lets not stifle all disagreement.  This site has a very good editing feature.  I would have no problem asking a member to resubmit his post after editing.

But I would hesitate to say "Go Away, You Scare Me." 

Your turn, troops.

Tom

 

[Michael Dorosh]

In any case, hotheads can turn the tides of battles. "Follow Me!"   Has seldom been issued in writing in a timely and effective manner.   It's one thing to administer soldiers, it's another thing to lead them.

What on earth does "Follow Me" have to do with discussing things in a professional forum?  This isn't a place for people to demonstrate how "hard-core" they are, nor flaunt their leadership abilities, it's a place to talk about issues germaine or of interest to all of us.

Those who cannot do that, are, as I pointed out, and as you obviously failed to grasp, a liability to this site.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Deal with it.

mo-litia,

I think you should sit back and realize that we are dealing with it. The moderators and senior posters of Army.ca on this site comprise a very broad range of ranks, trades and experience; yet we have managed to produce and sustain a healthy environment for debate and discussion of military topics on these forums. The atmosphere has been friendly and helpful to those seeking advice, yet when necessary can be more rigid to avoid direct, covert or inadvertent attempts to redirect the tone or purpose of the boards.

You seem eager to orient our focus towards the "problems of the Army" with the intent of directing that focus against the society we belong to. I do not think you could be more mis-directed in your intentions, though I do believe you may come by it honestly. What is wrong with our Army? Perhaps among the issues that need to be addressed are those who have failed to mature and evolve along with our societry, and to find a new balance between our roles as Canadian soldiers and our impressions of what soldiering means.

I do not think that many on the forums would disagree that being the loudest and brashest NCO or officer in a group does not equal being the best.  The finest NCOs and officers I have had the privilege of serving with, Regular and Reserve, have seldom been the swaggering braggart type you seem to be elucidating as superior. To the contrary, it has always seemed that the louder an individual became in trying to force his opinion on others, the less credible his position, and his ability to justify it.

You desire respect, respect is not earned by a dictatorial approach to inflicting one's personal opinions on others. In order to avoid reposting it, I will refer you to the following post on professionalism, if you would wish to earn the respect of others, I would encourage you to take it to heart:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21852/post-163847.html#msg163847

Pro Patria

 

[S McKee]

Mr Dorosh:   1. "People who go around calling people with other view points names ....

2. .... make you a liability to this site. .....I think the Army is weakened by hot-heads with no ability to communicate effectively in the written language.   Yet we still apparently have a few of them around. "

I see a small contradiction between the statements in para 1 and 2 above.  

In any case, hotheads can turn the tides of battles. "Follow Me!"   Has seldom been issued in writing in a timely and effective manner.   It's one thing to administer soldiers, it's another thing to lead them.

Many of us agree with the general sentiments of mo_litia and others, yet may state our cases differently.   Since this site justifiably prides itself on attracting a wide cross-section of those with military interests, it behoves us to guide those who do not have the benefit of a Degree in Communications, or Staff College, or fifty years on the planet, or whatever, to operate within a framework many find populated by the easily slighted.    If those are the rules of engagement, so be it, but lets not stifle all disagreement.   This site has a very good editing feature.   I would have no problem asking a member to resubmit his post after editing.

But I would hesitate to say "Go Away, You Scare Me."    

Your turn, troops.

Tom

I agree Tom well put. I enjoy this forum, and while mo-litia and Mad Max may seem a little intense for some people I really enjoyed reading their posts, they are obviously concerned about and love the CF. For all the bravado I think their heart's in the right place. And your right, their views about some issues are held by many of us still serving.

 

[Infanteer]

What's the point of this?

Mo-litia, you got smacked for referring to people who opposed your point of view as "Limp Wristed Liberals...." which was pretty pathetic.  I don't know where you're getting the idea that a "PC" attitude pervades these forums, because that is most certainly not the case.  If you haven't noticed, we are more then willing to critically discuss treatment of prisoners, government policies, and the like.  Just because we insist on it being done in a civil manner doesn't mean that the site has a "politically correct agenda".

Don't equate "ranting like a 15 year old on Mommy's computer" with "Telling the PC Crowd how it is".

With regards to the "Women in the Combat Arms" (which seems to be the real issue of this), it got locked because, as I said in another thread, it was "Spin Cycle".  Big Bad John put the article up to discuss the role of women in combat areas and you proceeded to use it as a pulpit to say the shouldn't be there.  It's fine to give your opinion, but when people began to disagree with you (especially those who have seen combat and fought alongside woman), you resorted to teaming up with Mad Max to dismiss any input other then what you wanted to hear as "failing to acknowledge reality".  The argument soon went into the mud after that and the lock was put in place.

If someone has a good article on women in combat and cares to make a point out of it, by all means go ahead and do so.  But spare us from the usual rant of "They can't physically do the job" - its gets tossed around here every 6 months or so and really is "0" in terms of productiveness.

Personally, I'm not fully in agreement with the route we've taken and I'll fully admit that I agree with some of the complaints that were lodged.  However, I'm not going to waste everybody's time by postulating my own personal opinions on the matter without presenting a cohesive and thorough argument for it.  If someone wishes to build a strong case for a different approach, then put it up here with links and substantiation.  As it stands, the articles and the input from those that have Been There and Done That seem to indicate that woman are here to stay.

Why don't we get over something that isn't going to change and put our energy somewhere useful.  Discussions on females in combat roles isn't going to change anything and won't make or break the Army tomorrow, but brainstorming on readiness issues, new Expeditionary Force structure, and Future Transformation are all things that we contribute to in building a concensus for real change in the way the military does business.

 

[TCBF]

"What on earth does "Follow Me" have to do with discussing things in a professional forum?  This isn't a place for people to demonstrate how "hard-core" they are, nor flaunt their leadership abilities, it's a place to talk about issues germaine or of interest to all of us."

True, but you mentioned "hotheads", who - if developed - are of some use to the military on occaision, and who also wish to "to talk about issues germaine or of interest to all of us."

"Those who cannot do that, are, as I pointed out, and as you obviously failed to grasp, a liability to this site."

No, I grasped that quickly.  I just happen to disagree to a certain extent.  Labelling all who do not share one's own opinions or styles of discourse is in itself an act of intollerance. 

Tom

 

[tomahawk6]

I think its important for a forum to allow for a frank exchange of ideas, within the bounds of common courtesy. Trolls would be the most obvious of undersireable posters and should be removed. Contentious topic's generate passion and interest which make for good debate. Personal attacks have no place in a professional forum. If a poster has a problem with a member of staff they should deal with the problem in private.

 

[Zoomie]

Good post Molitia - I agree whole-heartedly...

Remember folks - we are not a flying club (airforce metaphor) - our primary goal is to enforce the Government's will through whatever measures are required (ie. killing people).

Michael - unlike yourself, I find that most people who communicate effectively over these means are quite ineffective when the fit hits the shan in operations.

 

[mdh]

Michael - unlike yourself, I find that most people who communicate effectively over these means are quite ineffective when the fit hits the shan in operations.

Not sure what you mean here Zoomie - care to elaborate?

cheers, mdh

 

[Britney Spears]

Michael - unlike yourself, I find that most people who communicate effectively over these means are quite ineffective when the fit hits the shan in operations.

So if a member can't communicate effectively through these means( apparently no small feat for some of us, it seems),  what good is he to the forum?

More importantly, which one are YOU?

 

[Kat Stevens]

What on earth does "Follow Me" have to do with discussing things in a professional forum?  This isn't a place for people to demonstrate how "hard-core" they are, nor flaunt their leadership abilities, it's a place to talk about issues germaine or of interest to all of us.

Those who cannot do that, are, as I pointed out, and as you obviously failed to grasp, a liability to this site.

If I read this correctly, those of us that were not english comp majors or communication gurus have nothing to offer this forum.  Please correct me if I am in error...

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[Burrows]

He means carry yourself in a professional and calm manner and to try and spell correctly.. No l337 sp34k G Mizzle.

 

[winchable]

Alright, that's it.
I've snapped.

Everyone just **** off for a day.

No really, take a minute to have a coke and a smile, and **** off.

I'm not gonna lock the thread because apparently this offends the sensitivities of the members who have jumped out of a plane at 30000000 feet without parachute because I was born in the 80's.

I leave it open and once again we have ourselves the usual rehashed horse shyte that we had on this site about a year ago.
Except it's a new kind.
This kind is old, stale angry horse shyte and it's spurred on by anyone who comments on it's potency.

So once again, I reiterate, if you like the site AT ALL (in between rants about how bad a job we do moderating) have a coke a smile and a sit down put things into perspective....and if you still feel inclinced to grace us with your presence, come back.