LaxPower Back-Up Stick

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:37 pm All that said it's still not a good idea to use the military as an example. Of course it's not hard to figure it out but in the civilian world you have options whereas in the military it's a matter of structure, and again, protocol. You can accept from an ex military guy that's it's not a good comparison or not.

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:37 pm All that said it's still not a good idea to use the military as an example. Of course it's not hard to figure it out but in the civilian world you have options whereas in the military it's a matter of structure, and again, protocol. You can accept from an ex military guy that's it's not a good comparison or not.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:53 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:37 pm All that said it's still not a good idea to use the military as an example. Of course it's not hard to figure it out but in the civilian world you have options whereas in the military it's a matter of structure, and again, protocol. You can accept from an ex military guy that's it's not a good comparison or not.

What about once your time in service is over?

What about in sports where you have to call your head coach? It’s voluntary to participate like the military and once your in if you don’t then your out. Is that not a reasonable comparison?

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:23 pm ...it ain't that hard to figure out how to address someone.

If some 18 year old recruit who gets punished if he gets it wrong can add 1+1 and get 2? So can American adults.

And my second point, CLEARLY how you address someone is important in America. Always has been.
Ever seen someone who's rude to a waiter or employee at a store? For me? That's it, man, we're not friends.....I have no interest in spending time with someone who just can't handle respecting their fellow humans, and think that they're a F'ing King.

It's virtue signaling. And they're doing it because FoxNation has made this an "issue", instead of working on making America a better place.

Ten steak dinners says that when kram and OS meet someone who says "please address me as Sir".....they do it.

They're arguing to argue. I don't believe them. They're good, honest, polite Americans, just like the rest of us.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:06 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:37 pm All that said it's still not a good idea to use the military as an example. Of course it's not hard to figure it out but in the civilian world you have options whereas in the military it's a matter of structure, and again, protocol. You can accept from an ex military guy that's it's not a good comparison or not.

Fair enough.

Yes, in the civilian world you have options. That's what makes it great-----you can CHOOSE to be a friendly, warm human being.

Or, and folks are claiming that this is the world that they prefer------treat their fellow Americans with no respect at all.

Pretty easy choice.

I don't believe for a second that Kram and OS aren't warm, friendly human beings. And that they behave like that in public to complete strangers. Kram and OS are the guys who GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to be good people, and to treat people with respect.

They're not fooling me with this stuff.

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 9:50 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:53 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:37 pm All that said it's still not a good idea to use the military as an example. Of course it's not hard to figure it out but in the civilian world you have options whereas in the military it's a matter of structure, and again, protocol. You can accept from an ex military guy that's it's not a good comparison or not.

What about once your time in service is over?

What about in sports where you have to call your head coach? It’s voluntary to participate like the military and once your in if you don’t then your out. Is that not a reasonable comparison?

When you're out there is no longer a protocol.
No, it's not a reasonable comparison.

pro·to·col
[ˈprōdəˌkôl, ˈprōdəˌkäl]
NOUN
the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions:

In the civilian world you can address a person however you want and they can be addressed however they want.
In the military there are no options for the one being addressed or the one doing the addressing.
Once you're out none of that pertains, two different worlds, which is why the comparison doesn't
work.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:31 am

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:23 pm ...it ain't that hard to figure out how to address someone.

If some 18 year old recruit who gets punished if he gets it wrong can add 1+1 and get 2? So can American adults.

And my second point, CLEARLY how you address someone is important in America. Always has been.
Ever seen someone who's rude to a waiter or employee at a store? For me? That's it, man, we're not friends.....I have no interest in spending time with someone who just can't handle respecting their fellow humans, and think that they're a F'ing King.

It's virtue signaling. And they're doing it because FoxNation has made this an "issue", instead of working on making America a better place.

Ten steak dinners says that when kram and OS meet someone who says "please address me as Sir".....they do it.

They're arguing to argue. I don't believe them. They're good, honest, polite Americans, just like the rest of us.

AS usual -- you are misrepresenting our position & then blasting off on a tangent.

My post, which generated this HUGE controversy on this forum, was how to determine the self-selected sexual identity of the CO shooting victims.
It was not immediately obvious in that case.

What prompted my post was a graphic on MSNBC which showed head pictures of the victims & names.
From that, you could not be sure of their preferred sexual identity.
e.g. -- the name "Kelly Loving" could be M or F, a given name or stage name.
The picture showed a pretty face, heavily made up, with long blond hair.
It appeared to be the image of a wannabe beautiful woman. Turns out unsuprisingly, the individual was trans.
But looking at that person, you could not be sure & assume with certainty how they preferred to be addressed.
Was that person a Q bar drag performer or a customer ? Could be M, F, or B (like the shooter)

The next day, MSNBC ran the same graphic with the addition of [pronoun/pronoun] under each name.
They would not have done so had it been immediately obvious.
I found that ironic & bitterly amusing, given the firestorm of abuse my post ignited in this forum.
is ludicrous to compare this dilemma with basic military courtesies.
Saluting & salutations are based on rank, which is clear based on uniforms.
M or F is visible & unambiguous based on uniform & grooming differences & personal knowledge.
If unsure, you address by rank, rather than Sir or Ma'am. ...or just say "Aye,Aye" or " Roger That".

Remember -- my post was in the context of police or media naming the victims in their initial hurried reports, under time pressure,
...rather than what you blew it up & distorted it to be.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:59 am In the military, it was not complicated. You had male & female uniforms. The difference was visible & obvious.

With regard to sexuality -- Don't ask, don't tell -- was the practical policy before it became the official policy.

The different military services are each adapting to the pronoun issue in their own way.
https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/ ... re-blocks/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... penly.html

{Dmac -- how do you think this Navy training video went over in the Goat Locker ? }

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:40 am

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 9:50 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:53 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:37 pm All that said it's still not a good idea to use the military as an example. Of course it's not hard to figure it out but in the civilian world you have options whereas in the military it's a matter of structure, and again, protocol. You can accept from an ex military guy that's it's not a good comparison or not.

What about once your time in service is over?

What about in sports where you have to call your head coach? It’s voluntary to participate like the military and once your in if you don’t then your out. Is that not a reasonable comparison?

When you're out there is no longer a protocol.
No, it's not a reasonable comparison.

pro·to·col
[ˈprōdəˌkôl, ˈprōdəˌkäl]
NOUN
the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions:

In the civilian world you can address a person however you want and they can be addressed however they want.
In the military there are no options for the one being addressed or the one doing the addressing.
Once you're out none of that pertains, two different worlds, which is why the comparison doesn't
work.

Every system or form of organization has protocol that’s not unique to military. Protocol is broken all the time in and out of the form of organization know as the military. Isn’t there various forces discharges? Protocol exists everywhere and jointing the military is a choice, if forced by circumstance for some (many). But it’s not prison where your choice is forcibly taken. My cousin was discharged because he got caught selling weed while serving. He broke protocol. How was that not his choice?

Your definition and the words state and diplomatic occasions are not the sole domain of military. This I don’t understand how your answer even addresses my point.

What I do understand is a refusal by anyone to have several to acknowledge any similarities with anything else in the world yet I see examples of folks within service and after service who insist it isn’t true despite their own specific behavior betraying that argument. Goes for cousin who was tossed, had a felony he had to get removed and now throws up marine stuff on Facebook all the time to reflect his toughness and yet any toughness he has isn’t in any way, shape or form defined by his military service or experience. Then there’s a wife’s cousin who used rotc to pay for college, became a weatherman in service and has acknowledged he is only doing twenty years to get a pensions and double dip and long after it’s his choice to get out does everything in his paper to get people to “suck his d**k” regarding his service. Or the guy who went to West Point and I watched get girls hammered with bad intentions on the reg. All that behavior in and out of service is easily and highly translatable and relatable to many other forms of organization. All over life.

OS argument later on that you say rank when unsure actually explains it a lot better than “it’s the military you can’t understand” followed by arguments that just don’t address the issue at hand. What I don’t follow in his argument is why it matters if you’ve been trained in protocol then what protocol are you following in treating other human beings? It would indicate they don’t respect protocol in life and reject what is considered decent by the people of planet earth- a state.

state - government related is way down the list using your tactic of sharing literal definition
1 of 2
noun
ˈstāt
often attributive
1
: mode or condition of being
a state of readiness
(1)
: condition of mind or temperament
in a highly nervous state
(2)
: a condition of abnormal tension or excitement
2
a
: a condition or stage in the physical being of something
insects in the larval state
the gaseous state of water
b
: any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist
3
a
: social position
especially : high rank
b
(1)
: elaborate or luxurious style of living
(2)
: formal dignity : POMP —usually used with in
4
a
: a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : ESTATE sense 3
b
states plural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body
c
obsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)
5
a
: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory
especially : one that is sovereign
b
: the political organization of such a body of people
c
: a government or politically organized society having a particular character
a police state
the welfare state
6
: the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7
: one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government
the fifty states

Noun (see gator diplomacy or panda diplomacy below!)
Edit
diplomacy (countable and uncountable, plural diplomacies)

The art and practice of conducting international relations by negotiating alliances, treaties, agreements etc., bilaterally or multilaterally, between states and sometimes international organizations, or even between polities with varying status, such as those of monarchs and their princely vassals. quotations ▼synonyms ▲hyponyms ▼
Synonyms: statesmanship, statecraft
National diplomacy typically deploys its dexterity to secure advantage for one's nation.
Tact and subtle skill in dealing with people so as to avoid or settle hostility.
Derived terms
Edit
commodity diplomacy
dollar diplomacy
gastrodiplomacy
guerrilla diplomacy
gunboat diplomacy
hostage diplomacy
panda diplomacy
ping-pong diplomacy
public diplomacy

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:36 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 2:40 am

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 9:50 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:53 pm

DMac wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:37 pm All that said it's still not a good idea to use the military as an example. Of course it's not hard to figure it out but in the civilian world you have options whereas in the military it's a matter of structure, and again, protocol. You can accept from an ex military guy that's it's not a good comparison or not.

What about once your time in service is over?

What about in sports where you have to call your head coach? It’s voluntary to participate like the military and once your in if you don’t then your out. Is that not a reasonable comparison?

When you're out there is no longer a protocol.
No, it's not a reasonable comparison.

pro·to·col
[ˈprōdəˌkôl, ˈprōdəˌkäl]
NOUN
the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state or diplomatic occasions:

In the civilian world you can address a person however you want and they can be addressed however they want.
In the military there are no options for the one being addressed or the one doing the addressing.
Once you're out none of that pertains, two different worlds, which is why the comparison doesn't
work.

Every system or form of organization has protocol that’s not unique to military. Protocol is broken all the time in and out of the form of organization know as the military. Isn’t there various forces discharges? Protocol exists everywhere and jointing the military is a choice, if forced by circumstance for some (many). But it’s not prison where your choice is forcibly taken. My cousin was discharged because he got caught selling weed while serving. He broke protocol. How was that not his choice?

Your definition and the words state and diplomatic occasions are not the sole domain of military. This I don’t understand how your answer even addresses my point.

What I do understand is a refusal by anyone to have several to acknowledge any similarities with anything else in the world yet I see examples of folks within service and after service who insist it isn’t true despite their own specific behavior betraying that argument. Goes for cousin who was tossed, had a felony he had to get removed and now throws up marine stuff on Facebook all the time to reflect his toughness and yet any toughness he has isn’t in any way, shape or form defined by his military service or experience. Then there’s a wife’s cousin who used rotc to pay for college, became a weatherman in service and has acknowledged he is only doing twenty years to get a pensions and double dip and long after it’s his choice to get out does everything in his paper to get people to “suck his d**k” regarding his service. Or the guy who went to West Point and I watched get girls hammered with bad intentions on the reg. All that behavior in and out of service is easily and highly translatable and relatable to many other forms of organization. All over life.

OS argument later on that you say rank when unsure actually explains it a lot better than “it’s the military you can’t understand” followed by arguments that just don’t address the issue at hand. What I don’t follow in his argument is why it matters if you’ve been trained in protocol then what protocol are you following in treating other human beings? It would indicate they don’t respect protocol in life and reject what is considered decent by the people of planet earth- a state.

state - government related is way down the list using your tactic of sharing literal definition
1 of 2
noun
ˈstāt
often attributive
1
: mode or condition of being
a state of readiness
(1)
: condition of mind or temperament
in a highly nervous state
(2)
: a condition of abnormal tension or excitement
2
a
: a condition or stage in the physical being of something
insects in the larval state
the gaseous state of water
b
: any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist
3
a
: social position
especially : high rank
b
(1)
: elaborate or luxurious style of living
(2)
: formal dignity : POMP —usually used with in
4
a
: a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : ESTATE sense 3
b
states plural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body
c
obsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)
5
a
: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory
especially : one that is sovereign
b
: the political organization of such a body of people
c
: a government or politically organized society having a particular character
a police state
the welfare state
6
: the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7
: one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government
the fifty states

Noun (see gator diplomacy or panda diplomacy below!)
Edit
diplomacy (countable and uncountable, plural diplomacies)

The art and practice of conducting international relations by negotiating alliances, treaties, agreements etc., bilaterally or multilaterally, between states and sometimes international organizations, or even between polities with varying status, such as those of monarchs and their princely vassals. quotations ▼synonyms ▲hyponyms ▼
Synonyms: statesmanship, statecraft
National diplomacy typically deploys its dexterity to secure advantage for one's nation.
Tact and subtle skill in dealing with people so as to avoid or settle hostility.
Derived terms
Edit
commodity diplomacy
dollar diplomacy
gastrodiplomacy
guerrilla diplomacy
gunboat diplomacy
hostage diplomacy
panda diplomacy
ping-pong diplomacy
public diplomacy

Your cousin did not break "protocol" he violated the UCMJ and suffered the consequences. He is lucky he didn't wind up at Ft Leavenworth turning big rocks into little rocks. I hope he doesn't wear his dishonorable discharge as a badge of honor. Getting popped selling weed when I was in the army was a big deal and your commanding officer would have dropped the hammer on you. They use to call it making an example of some one to deter other people from doing the same thing.

When my unit was in Panama training at the JOTC one soldier was pooped buying some red bud ( Panama Red) from an undercover army narc. He wound up being demoted from E4 to E2 and earned a 30 day all expense paid vacation to Charlies Chicken Farm.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:20 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:59 am In the military, it was not complicated. You had male & female uniforms. The difference was visible & obvious.

With regard to sexuality -- Don't ask, don't tell -- was the practical policy before it became the official policy.

The different military services are each adapting to the pronoun issue in their own way.
https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/ ... re-blocks/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... penly.html

Yes but I’m saying outside the military now do you start with they/them? Is there a comparison with asking someone to “drop a coin”, which is usually from what I’ve seen done by a low ranking person hoping to prove they served vs someone else?

I took Afans point to be that protocol isn’t hard to learn and if human being in society protocol is to respect each individual as a human being and they have a way they want to be defined (and it’s costless to you as an added bonus) then it shouldn’t be hard to make this adjustment/adaptation just as one adjusts in service to addressing folks by that protocol.

As for the news or msnbc/Fox whoever, they are for profit enterprises and their protocol is getting that cheddar. Why would that matter when discussing human interaction and social grace?

DMac wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:37 am There is nobody here who has been more critical of veterans exaggerating their military experience than I have. Yes, the ex Marine, there is a high percentage of them who want you to believe they did everything short of jumping on a grenade while in because, well because they were a Marine. Vietnam vets are the same, a high percent want you to believe they spent a week on Hamburger Hill when the fact of the matter is neither the Marine nor a high percentage of Vietnam vets did jack schidt regarding combat and their bravery under fire. I make my friend very uncomfortable when we run into a Vietnam vet as I've called more than one of them out when he was with me. When the conversation ends it's a whole lot different than it was when it began with that tough guy Vietnam vet persona, I'm not easy to bullschidt along those lines. By the same token, this goes other way too, see storming of the Capitol Bldg and veterans. All those ex military guys and their training when the fact of the matter is most of them never fired a weapon or had any kind of combat training while serving. Most civilians who never served see military people as something they aren't too.
As for the matter of the Marine who got busted for pot, cradle is right, this is a matter of law/UCMJ, not protocol. Two different things altogether. Salty is right too, uniforms and insignia dictate to you how you will address a person, there are no options as there are in the civilian world. You will address your Sargeant Major as Sargeant Major, he/she has no choice about how you're going to address him/her either.
I have lived in both worlds, many years in each, and I will tell you there is a difference there. The military is not a good example to use when discussing how you will address another person or how that person wants to be addressed. Structure and protocol dictate, there are no options, you can continue to argue the point but nothing is going to change that. Once you're out of the military and no longer wearing the uniform none of that pertains. How you address a person then is a matter of courtesy and/or respect, it's not protocol. I don't have to call a police officer sir or ma'am but while in the military I do have to call a Captain sir or ma'am. They don't have a choice of how they want to be addressed either.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:05 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:20 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:59 am In the military, it was not complicated. You had male & female uniforms. The difference was visible & obvious.

With regard to sexuality -- Don't ask, don't tell -- was the practical policy before it became the official policy.

The different military services are each adapting to the pronoun issue in their own way.
https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/ ... re-blocks/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... penly.html

Yes but I’m saying outside the military now do you start with they/them? Is there a comparison with asking someone to “drop a coin”, which is usually from what I’ve seen done by a low ranking person hoping to prove they served vs someone else?

I took Afans point to be that protocol isn’t hard to learn and if human being in society protocol is to respect each individual as a human being and they have a way they want to be defined (and it’s costless to you as an added bonus) then it shouldn’t be hard to make this adjustment/adaptation just as one adjusts in service to addressing folks by that protocol.

As for the news or msnbc/Fox whoever, they are for profit enterprises and their protocol is getting that cheddar. Why would that matter when discussing human interaction and social grace?

First of all, military unit coins did not exist when I served, but we did roll dice at the bar.
Out of uniform, my profession was not apparent & only came up as anyone else's would.

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill, trying to apply this to me.
I'm no longer in situations where this would be an issue for me.
I'm no longer in the service nor do I author correspondence or documents referring to others.

Since you persist in seeking a military analogy, the protocol would be to list someone's [pronouns] after their name, just as their rank precedes their name, & to make a discreet uniform device which conveys their declared gender & preferred pronouns.
I predict the Air Force * (&/or) Space Force will be the first to come up with that.
I will continue to be entertained as the media grapples with the issue,
...which was all I was doing in my original post on this subject.

Meanwhile, I'm comfortable interacting with people as I always have. If I'm unsure of someone's declared gender (& corresponding preferred pronouns), I'll use gender neutral wording when referring to them in 3rd person.
Fortunately, unlike the Romance languages, our 1st & 2nd person pronouns, verbs, articles, adjectives & adverbs are gender neutral.
This has not come up yet for me, but when it does, I'll be ready.

* https://www.nationalreview.com/news/air ... m-and-dad/
Air Force Academy Tells Cadets to Ditch Gendered Terms Like ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’

September 23, 2022
Cadets at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs have been instructed to adopt gender-inclusive language as part of their diversity and inclusion training at the esteemed military institution.

“Use words that include all genders,” the training material, obtained by Fox News, directs. It reminds readers to ask for a person’s preferred gender pronouns and names rather than referring to them by their observable sex.

Recommended substitutes for “you guys,” if a student is addressing a group of people, are gender-neutral terms including “team,” “squaddies,” “folks” and “y’all.”

“Some families are headed by single parents, grandparents, foster parents, two moms, two dads, etc.: consider ‘parent or caregiver’ instead of ‘mom and dad,'” the training says. Romantic relationships have to be stripped of gender connotations, too, with the presentation suggesting the word “partner” over “boyfriend or girlfriend.”

The training suggests that lumping people into a class based on various orientations is offensive and orders students to use “person-centered” language. Instead of “the disabled,” the speaker should say “people with disabilities” and “transgender people” instead of “transgenders.”

Treating races equally by vowing to be “color blind” is not acceptable or sufficient, according to the training, which says that “color conscious,” on the other hand, is the correct language to use instead. It encourages students to distinguish based on race, to “see Color/Patterns” AND VALUE people for their uniqueness.”

The training instructs cadets to adopt gender, racial, and bodily inclusive language.
The training claims that the programming will make the country’s military more competitive, as “our leaders have deemed D&I a warfighting imperative.” It is important to “lift others (motivate our teams)” as part of a strategy to develop “warfighters.” In order to foster a “warfighter mentality” among trainees, the commandant feels instructors should prioritize inclusivity, ownership, harmony, and institutional pride, according to the presentation.

The Air Force “develops leaders of character that can lead diverse teams of Airmen and Guardians inclusively, to enhance innovation and win future conflict,” a spokesperson told Fox News. “It is the diversity of Airmen and Guardians coming from all corners of our nation who perform the Department of the Air Force’s hundreds of critical mission sets that make us the best, most innovative Air and Space Forces the world has ever known.”

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:50 am

DMac wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:37 am There is nobody here who has been more critical of veterans exaggerating their military experience than I have. Yes, the ex Marine, there is a high percentage of them who want you to believe they did everything short of jumping on a grenade while in because, well because they were a Marine. Vietnam vets are the same, a high percent want you to believe they spent a week on Hamburger Hill when the fact of the matter is neither the Marine nor a high percentage of Vietnam vets did jack schidt regarding combat and their bravery under fire. I make my friend very uncomfortable when we run into a Vietnam vet as I've called more than one of them out when he was with me. When the conversation ends it's a whole lot different than it was when it began with that tough guy Vietnam vet persona, I'm not easy to bullschidt along those lines. By the same token, this goes other way too, see storming of the Capitol Bldg and veterans. All those ex military guys and their training when the fact of the matter is most of them never fired a weapon or had any kind of combat training while serving. Most civilians who never served see military people as something they aren't too.
As for the matter of the Marine who got busted for pot, cradle is right, this is a matter of law/UCMJ, not protocol. Two different things altogether. Salty is right too, uniforms and insignia dictate to you how you will address a person, there are no options as there are in the civilian world. You will address your Sargeant Major as Sargeant Major, he/she has no choice about how you're going to address him/her either.
I have lived in both worlds, many years in each, and I will tell you there is a difference there. The military is not a good example to use when discussing how you will address another person or how that person wants to be addressed. Structure and protocol dictate, there are no options, you can continue to argue the point but nothing is going to change that. Once you're out of the military and no longer wearing the uniform none of that pertains. How you address a person then is a matter of courtesy and/or respect, it's not protocol. I don't have to call a police officer sir or ma'am but while in the military I do have to call a Captain sir or ma'am. They don't have a choice of how they want to be addressed either.

A lot of truth in there. At the end of the day, it should not be hard to be a decent human being.

DMac wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:37 am There is nobody here who has been more critical of veterans exaggerating their military experience than I have. Yes, the ex Marine, there is a high percentage of them who want you to believe they did everything short of jumping on a grenade while in because, well because they were a Marine. Vietnam vets are the same, a high percent want you to believe they spent a week on Hamburger Hill when the fact of the matter is neither the Marine nor a high percentage of Vietnam vets did jack schidt regarding combat and their bravery under fire. I make my friend very uncomfortable when we run into a Vietnam vet as I've called more than one of them out when he was with me. When the conversation ends it's a whole lot different than it was when it began with that tough guy Vietnam vet persona, I'm not easy to bullschidt along those lines. By the same token, this goes other way too, see storming of the Capitol Bldg and veterans. All those ex military guys and their training when the fact of the matter is most of them never fired a weapon or had any kind of combat training while serving. Most civilians who never served see military people as something they aren't too.
As for the matter of the Marine who got busted for pot, cradle is right, this is a matter of law/UCMJ, not protocol. Two different things altogether. Salty is right too, uniforms and insignia dictate to you how you will address a person, there are no options as there are in the civilian world. You will address your Sargeant Major as Sargeant Major, he/she has no choice about how you're going to address him/her either.
I have lived in both worlds, many years in each, and I will tell you there is a difference there. The military is not a good example to use when discussing how you will address another person or how that person wants to be addressed. Structure and protocol dictate, there are no options, you can continue to argue the point but nothing is going to change that. Once you're out of the military and no longer wearing the uniform none of that pertains. How you address a person then is a matter of courtesy and/or respect, it's not protocol. I don't have to call a police officer sir or ma'am but while in the military I do have to call a Captain sir or ma'am. They don't have a choice of how they want to be addressed either.

But of course you told me you’d never believe me about a finance/banking thing I’ve seen first hand so don’t we end up at a point of trust but verify? I’d hope you’d give others the same courtesy who’s lived in multiple worlds as well.

old salt wrote

{Dmac -- how do you think this Navy training video went over in the Goat Locker ? }

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:22 am ...When I get after you it’s the same way I get after a lawyer who gets into business decision making of clients or bosses (tactical and think they’re strategic) or bankers who think they can actually run a business (strategic minds but not good tactically) when it appears you want to be Renaissance man as does everyone but it’s a myth like the myth that multitasking is effective or optimal. Interjecting into others lives and putting on the facade of being more holistic and denying the contextual relevance that pervades our lives. We, including myself, are all guilty of it. We don’t see all the reflections of the moon off the lake like the Native American chief did going to see his bird at night but we think we do and when we pretend it’s reality and jam our egos into the lives of others is when I push back.

Do you not understand that? Is it because you catch it a lot here and sometimes it’s over the top or a bit aggressive?