[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Well, whatever time frame is applicable, then. We do need to be able to figure out when this became a potential problem, and when it blossomed into a fully-realized problem.
[/QUOTE]
It shouldn’t be a problem, period.
I can’t imagine the amount of envelopes, toner and stamps I’d go through if I lived down there.
Sorry.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I was referring to **Bricker’s ** drive-by dismissal of this particular pooch screwing, not the larger Pooch Screwing that provokes near unanimous condemnation.
[/QUOTE]
He rah-rah’ed for someone who pointed out a factual error on a website devoted to fighting ignorance. If you can find me a place where he dismisses the truthful elements of the article, I will applaud your efforts.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
He rah-rah’ed for someone who pointed out a factual error on a website devoted to fighting ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
And what factual error did you imagine he pointed out?
“Bush Sucks screed” = drive-by dismissal. Q.E.D.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
And what factual error did you imagine he pointed out? “Bush Sucks screed” = drive-by dismissal. Q.E.D.
[/QUOTE]
He rah-rah’ed for someone else who did. That someone else was Zoe, who pointed out that the assertion that we are talking about wounded soldiers is unfounded by the OP’s link.
And insulting people who ignore it when factual errors are pointed out in preference for continuing their target bashing is called an “insult” not a dismissal. He insulted you. That’s different from dismissing the topic.
I’ll just note that the reason I’m being a hard-ass on this point is due to this recent thread:
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
Serious questions here:
Isn’t psychological testing a normal part of the induction process? And from my understanding, diagnoses like Personality Disorders are not so much exhibited outwardly (like say schizophrenia or depression) but are ONLY diagnosable via a clinical test. IOW, it would be nigh on impossible for someone to cheat on a test that was properly and adequately administered because cheating would be indicative of a disorder. I’m not quite explaining myself properly here, but I think you get my drift…hopefully??
[/quote]
Unless things have changed, the sole psychological “test”, if you want to call it that, is a brief interview with a psychiatrist. During my induction physical, I talked to the psychiatrist for a grand total of maybe 10 minutes, during which time he asked me if I was a lesbian.
I do know, however, that people entering certain specialties are subjected to more in-depth screenings and so forth. Unfortunately, there is a world of difference between clearing someone based on a screening and someone who ends up with PTSD or some other psychological disorder that developed because of or during combat or some other extreme situation.
In my experience, PD is sort of a catch-all for a lot of things, not necessarily a formal Axis II diagnosis. In fact, it’s been described to me (because I was threatened with discharged based on it) as “does not play well with others.” But because it’s considered “pre-existing”, it absolves the military of a lot of responsibility.
Robin
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
That someone else was Zoe, who pointed out that the assertion that we are talking about wounded soldiers is unfounded by the OP’s link.
[/QUOTE]
The link specifically detailed a soldier wounded in Iraq who was denied benefits. Where is the error?
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
The link specifically detailed a soldier wounded in Iraq who was denied benefits. Where is the error?
[/QUOTE]
the implication that all/most/many of those denied benefits under pre-existing PD were also wounded in battle.
[QUOTE=wring]
the implication that all/most/many of those denied benefits under pre-existing PD were also wounded in battle.
[/QUOTE]
You should look up the difference between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’. No where did I say that all/most/many of the Chapter 5-13 denials were wounded Iraq vets. It is undeniable that some of them are. It was also reported that the practice is increasing beyond the normal expectations of professionals in the field.
How many does it take to get you care about our troops?
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
The link specifically detailed a soldier wounded in Iraq who was denied benefits. Where is the error?
[/QUOTE]
As wring says, the implication from the thread title is that soldiers are being denied benefits due to their wounds. Now it might be true that that is the case, but a sample of one doesn’t prove that. All it might prove is that it’s easier to find someone to interview in the medical ward than it is elsewhere on the military base.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
You should look up the difference between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’.
[/quote]
Well which did you think when you wrote the title? If you didn’t mean it to sound like that, and didn’t mean to imply that we were talking about specifically wounded soldiers, then alright. But as a kindly note, it does seem to imply that, so you might want to ask for a title change.
That’s irrelevant. As pointed out in the Pagan thread, pointing out factual errors is entirely separate from opinions as to the topic at hand.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
How many does it take to get you care about our troops?
[/QUOTE]
and a hearty fuck you back atchya. You asked a question, I answered it. did you happen to notice my reply to ** bricker**? the one where I said it was reprehensible to send mentally ill soldiers into battle at all?
Didn’t we do this topic here?
At least the conversation in that thread might prove educational in this one.
Sailboat
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Now it might be true that that is the case, but a sample of one doesn’t prove that.
[/QUOTE]
Sample of one? Go back and read the article again. In addition to Town, the article related the similar experiences of Richard Dykstra, William Wooldridge and Chris Mosier. Then there is this:
What does that imply to you, if not a pattern of abuse that goes far beyond a “pattern of one”?
[QUOTE=wring]
did you happen to notice my reply to ** bricker**? the one where I said it was reprehensible to send mentally ill soldiers into battle at all?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. Must have missed it. I apologize.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Sorry. Must have missed it. I apologize.
[/QUOTE]
fair 'nuff, “fuck you” retracted.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
“Bush Sucks screed” = drive-by dismissal.
[/QUOTE]
Well, he may not have meant it exactly that way; the terseness of his post may lead to ambiguities in meaning. In all fairness, he does have to economize; he can’t type as fast, one-handed, while the other hand is occupied in giving Bush a cock massage.
Well, he serves at the pleasure of the President…
How exactly does one “suck a screed”?