# MP's are assholes **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 30, 2001, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827 "2001-04-30T10:31:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/41 "2001-05-07T14:30:47Z")
Tell me, in addition to being able to exercise well, can you get awards for learning how to turn off italics using [vB code](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php?action=bbcode)? :trolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![chique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@chique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chique)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/42 "2001-05-07T19:06:33Z")
**Monty** , the only thing going through my mind while I read your posts to this thread was: “Thank GAWD I was a CT and not a PN.” If I would have had an LPO with an attitude like yours the first time early outs were offered I’d have jumped at it. Oh, yeah … ‘retired’ at 20? More like you hit HYT and were forced out, right? At least your peers knew you weren’t chief material; who knows what kind of havoc you could’ve raised had the Peter Principle failed. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RichG7Subs_ > Do I really need to get written up for a haircut my first day back in port after a 3 month patrol WHILE I’M STANDING IN LINE FOR A HAIRCUT? That QM2 with 3 hashmarks just cost the Navy 500 grand. Yeppers. At my third command I had the misfortune of working closely with an LPO like ol’ Monty here and saw stuff like that on a weekly basis. **That’s** when I took the early out. ---
**Author:** ![Rich\_G7subs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rich\_G7subs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rich_G7subs)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/43 "2001-05-07T21:12:31Z")
\>\>\>\>You spent 20 years of your life in the army and all you have to show for it is your moth-eaten uniform and your right to shop at the commissary.\<\<\< posted by Syehoc Ok,well I wouldn’t go that far.The man served his country for 20 years.At least show him some respect for that.It’s a tough life and he earned that retirement pay.Better him than us,right?Cut HIM some slack,after 20 years in the service he’s only had 14 months to adjust to life in the REAL world. ---
**Author:** ![Rich\_G7subs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rich\_G7subs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rich_G7subs)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/44 "2001-05-07T21:18:58Z")
\>\>\>\>You spent 20 years of your life in the army and all you have to show for it is your moth-eaten uniform and your right to shop at the commissary.\<\<\< posted by Syehoc Ok,well I wouldn’t go that far.The man served his country for 20 years.At least show him some respect for that.It’s a tough life and he earned that retirement pay.Better him than us,right?Cut HIM some slack,after 20 years in the service he’s only had 14 months to adjust to life in the REAL world. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/45 "2001-05-07T21:58:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Syehoc \* > I’m an 88M, basically a truck driver. I joined the army in Sept. of 99 and made E4 two months ago. I guess I don’t have to tell you that it requires a waiver and a recommendation from the commander to get promoted that early. So what do you think about your own lack of age and experience in that job? After all, “what’s good for the MP is good for the Driver.” > [@](#): > > Since I’ve been in, I’ve gotten two AAM’s, one for outstanding PT scores and one for soldier of the quarter for my battalion. Not too long ago I was selected to be our Colonel’s personal driver, a position I’m still holding. The “bad soldiers” I work with are E3’s, mowing lawns on saturdays. Good for you. Done anything recently besides bitch about someone else doing their fucking job? > [@](#): > > You have a real problem with speculation. The problem is, you suck at it. If your going to make such blunt accusations you should know what you’re talking about. At first, I was pissed off that you called me a “fucking cry baby,” but what do you know? Apparently my speculation is far better than yours. > [@](#): > > Now that you’ve retired, what do you do? Sit back and collect half of what you’re pay would have been if you would have stayed in? No. I worked at one job overseas for six months and then returned to California. I now attend college. The retirment pay for me is 50% of my Base Pay. When on Active Duty, I got paid a housing allowance, a clothing allowance, and a subsistence allowance - none of which figures into the retirment pay. I see your math skills are also poor. > [@](#): > > I can’t really blame you. You spent 20 years of your life in the army and all you have to show for it is your moth-eaten uniform and your right to shop at the commissary. I spent 20 years total service. The majority of that service was in the Navy. I see your reading comprehensions skills blow too. > [@](#): > > Don’t jump all over my back because you have all this unresolved anger toward “bad soldiers”, you fucking burnout. I jumped on a crybaby remark. You don’t like it, don’t make crybaby remarks. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/46 "2001-05-07T22:13:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chique \* > **Monty** , the only thing going through my mind while I read your posts to this thread was: “Thank GAWD I was a CT and not a PN.” If I would have had an LPO with an attitude like yours the first time early outs were offered I’d have jumped at it. You’ve a mind? Truly amazing. > [@](#): > > Oh, yeah … ‘retired’ at 20? Yes. > [@](#): > > More like you hit HYT and were forced out, right? Nope. I had always planned on retiring at 20 years. Try to keep up, mindless one. HYT has been increased and even before the official increase, waivers were routinely granted to those who requested it. I didn’t because I planned on retiring at 20. > [@](#): > > At least your peers knew you weren’t chief material; Incorrect yet again. Every eval I got as a PN1 recommended me for immediate advancement to Chief. > [@](#): > > who knows what kind of havoc you could’ve raised had the Peter Principle failed. You are in error that my situation is analgous at all to said principle. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by RichG7Subs_ > > Do I really need to get written up for a haircut my first day back in port after a 3 month patrol WHILE I’M STANDING IN LINE FOR A HAIRCUT? That QM2 with 3 hashmarks just cost the Navy 500 grand. > > Yeppers. At my third command I had the misfortune of working closely with an LPO like ol’ Monty here and saw stuff like that on a weekly basis. **That’s** when I took the early out. As LPO of that QM2 I would’ve given him counseling regarding his unjust usage of the MIR. As to my ability as LPO, you’re just talking shit. ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/47 "2001-05-07T22:19:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Syehoc \* > > > [@](#): > > > > - Originally posted by Manservant Hecubus\* > > And, for that matter, if you can execute an about-face from parade rest, I’d like to take you to Ripley’s > > Touche’, I should have previewed that one. While you’re at it, could you preview all of your posts and notice that you’re supposed to turn off the damn italics? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2001, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/48 "2001-05-07T22:38:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Syehoc \* > > I’m an 88M, basically a truck driver. I joined the army in Sept. of 99 and made E4 two months ago. I guess I don’t have to tell you that it requires a waiver and a recommendation from the commander to get promoted that early. > > So what do you think about your own lack of age and experience in that job? After all, “what’s good for the MP is good for the Driver.”\*\* This is an interesting point. Syehoc, who is by self-described profession, a “truck driver”, has been promoted ahead of his peers for running fast, and for getting more miles per gallon than the rest of the batallion. (Speculation is running rampant here, so why don’t I get in in the act?) However, Syehoc is upset because he was busted for breaking rules of the road, instead of someone else, whose offense was greater in Syehoc’s eyes, which must obviously be of crystal clarity, since he is, as above mentioned, promoted above his peers, and sight is a necessary element of truck driving. So, let’s break this down to the bare essentials. 1. Syehoc drives for the military. 2. Syehoc saw someone breaking the laws of the road. 3. Syehoc broke the laws of the road, and got caught. 4. Syehoc is upset about the fact that he got caught, instead of the other guy. Now, throw in the fact that Syehoc drives vehicles as his military duty. Consider then that Syehoc either did not know, or did not care that he broke a road law. With his limited written skills, it’s difficult to ascertain. Factor in that the OP also reeks of hyperbole. Throw in a generalization or two, and you’ve got a recipe for quick and easy disingenuity, the Syehoc way! You speak ill of arrogance when you’ve demonstrated nothing but. You claim to be a superstar driver when your grasp of road rules is demonstrated to be limited. You say you care, when you say you don’t. I question your integrity. In fact, I challenge it, you miserable cluster of worm-ridden capybara stool. You have the brains AND the spine of a jellyfish. And, you have no more of my attention, fuckwit. Carry the fuck on, Rambo, you’re dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/49 "2001-05-08T01:26:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > > > [@](#): > > > > More like you hit HYT and were forced out, right? > > Nope. I had always planned on retiring at 20 years. Try to keep up, mindless one. HYT has been increased and even before the official increase, waivers were routinely granted to those who requested it. I didn’t because I planned on retiring at 20. Just out of curiosity, what’s HYT? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > At least your peers knew you weren’t chief material; > > Incorrect yet again. Every eval I got as a PN1 recommended me for immediate advancement to Chief. Not to be too much of a nitpicker, but I don’t think your evals measure your _peers_ opinion of you. ---
**Author:** ![chique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@chique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chique)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/50 "2001-05-08T01:40:21Z")
> [@](#): > > You’ve a mind? Truly amazing. Let me take the time to reiterate the bit about the joy I feel at not ever having to work with you. I’m sure you’ll agree with this point. > [@](#): > > Nope. I had always planned on retiring at 20 years. Try to keep up, mindless one. Tut tut. Redundancy doesn’t become you, sweetheart. And I _do_ wonder how many times you went up before the chief’s board before you decided that you have ‘always’ wanted to retire at 20. > [@](#): > > At least your peers knew you weren’t chief material; > > > [@](#): > > > > Incorrect yet again. Every eval I got as a PN1 recommended me for immediate advancement to Chief. I was actually referring to your peers on the chief’s board, not your superiors at your commands. Will let that bit of inattention slide, though. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > who knows what kind of havoc you could’ve raised had the Peter Principle failed. > > You are in error that my situation is analgous at all to said principle. No, this point I believe is correct. If existing chiefs didn’t think you were good enough for their ranks then it must be true. Either that or you couldn’t pass the chief’s exam. Which one is it? > [@](#): > > As LPO of that QM2 I would’ve given him counseling regarding his unjust usage of the MIR. Considering the manner in which you used your 20 years of military experience to ‘counsel’ **Syehoc** I highly doubt that. > [@](#): > > As to my ability as LPO, you’re just talking shit. True, because you were never my LPO (see first paragraphs). BTW, Monty, this bit… > [@](#): > > BTW, it’s not YOUR barracks: It’s the unit barracks. You’re merely assigned to a bunk and attendant space there. …was truly disengenuous. I suppose if I ever make the mistake of referring to ‘my hometown’ you’ll take after me as the town is actually owned by individual members of my community. :rolleyes: Several people have shored up **Syehoc’s** (somewhat poorly written) argument that some MPs let their power go to their heads, just like some civilian police officers. So the poor kid comes in and bitches about a traffic ticket and some of you (Monty, MrC) take after him like he’s just committed treason. It’s brainless, arrogant attitudes like those that make people leave the services in droves, and until the military services repair those faults they will continue to have difficulty making recruitment and retention goals. **Syehoc** : For future reference, I strongly recommend you get in good with security on your base. Chances are pretty good that the 'Vette the MP ignored to tag you for your California roll was either a fellow MP or someone who parties with them. Not that I’d know, of course 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/51 "2001-05-08T03:11:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chique \* > **So the poor kid comes in and bitches about a traffic ticket and some of you (Monty, MrC) take after him like he’s just committed treason. It’s brainless, arrogant attitudes like those that make people leave the services in droves, and until the military services repair those faults they will continue to have difficulty making recruitment and retention goals.** So. Let’s dissect your argument. It shouldn’t be hard, cause it’s a shambles already. Firstly, when did I enter the discussion? Was it over the traffic ticket? Absolutely not. It was over the fact that Syehoc was whining and puling about MPs drinking alcohol on duty. Not, as you appear to have deluded yourself into thinking, over his ticket. At first, I thought that maybe the kid could learn from him mistake. Over time, I came to think that this was not the case. Your allegation that I treated him as if he had committed treason for his traffic offense is patently absurd. I treated him as if he had witnessed a crime, and did not a damn thing about it other than complain that he had witnessed it to a bunch of people who have nothing to do with it. This, chique, is behavior absolutely bereft of sense. In one fell swoop, he has managed to destroy his credibility and his integrity. And you stoop to defend him? Shame on You. As for the fact that standing up for the law, and striking ignorance it it’s face makes the ignorant people leave the service in droves, I applaud that. I encourage it. Drive out the weak, the inept, the incapable. They are the weakest links. And I would wager your life that if you put an armband that says MP on Syehoc, he’d be just as bad, if not worse, than the people he’s whining about now. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/52 "2001-05-08T03:32:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chique \* > > > [@](#): > > > > You’ve a mind? Truly amazing. > > Let me take the time to reiterate the bit about the joy I feel at not ever having to work with you. I’m sure you’ll agree with this point. True, I don’t suffer fools gladly. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > ]Nope. I had always planned on retiring at 20 years. Try to keep up, mindless one. > > Tut tut. Redundancy doesn’t become you, sweetheart. I’m not your sweetheart, “pushbutton\*.” > [@](#): > > And I _do_ wonder how many times you went up before the chief’s board before you decided that you have ‘always’ wanted to retire at 20. Oh, about 15 years ago is when I decided I wanted to retire at 20, given that’s the minimum service required for it. I never took the Chief’s test. That break in service cost a few years time in rate and thus a number of points on the promotion tests for PO1. But you were a “pushbutton” and didn’t have to worry about little things like promotion tests to actually become a Petty Officer. Rich G7subs, on the other hand, evidently managed to participate, lead, and act in a professional manner to make PO1. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > At least your peers knew you weren’t chief material; > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Incorrect yet again. Every eval I got as a PN1 recommended me for immediate advancement to Chief. > > I was actually referring to your peers on the chief’s board, not your superiors at your commands. Will let that bit of inattention slide, though. However, I shall not let your absolute fucking lie about the Chief’s board slide. The board is not composed of other PO1s. It’s composed of Chiefs, Senior Chief, Master Chiefs and Commissioned and Warrant Officers appointed to it. Too bad you’re evidently confusing the Navy Advancement System with the membership requirements for the Boy Scouts’ Order of the Arrow, in which Boy Scouts elect their peers to the Order. Maybe that’s the real reason you bailed, the Navy’s not enough of a Boy Scout camp for you. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > who knows what kind of havoc you could’ve raised had the Peter Principle failed. > > > > You are in error that my situation is analgous at all to said principle. > > No, this point I believe is correct. If existing chiefs didn’t think you were good enough for their ranks then it must be true. Either that or you couldn’t pass the chief’s exam. Which one is it? And you just now contradicted yourself, moron. I did not compete for Chief. My Chiefs and Officers recommended me for Chief. I retired at 20 years as I planned. Since you say “if they think it, it must be true,” why are you arguing agsinst their recommendation for me to be a Chief? And yet again, I did not take the Chief’s exam although I had to listen to an entire year of “when are you going to pull your retirement chit?” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > As LPO of that QM2 I would’ve given him counseling regarding his unjust usage of the MIR. > > Considering the manner in which you used your 20 years of military experience to ‘counsel’ **Syehoc** I highly doubt that. I have actually served as LPO, and I have actually served Shore Patrol and I have actually served (TEMADD) as a guard at one Navy Brig. On all of those occasions, I have found it necessary to counsel someone one way or the other (all legal ways of course). > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > As to my ability as LPO, you’re just talking shit. > > True, because you were never my LPO (see first paragraphs). > > BTW, Monty, this bit… > > > [@](#): > > > > BTW, it’s not YOUR barracks: It’s the unit barracks. You’re merely assigned to a bunk and attendant space there. > > …was truly disengenuous. I suppose if I ever make the mistake of referring to ‘my hometown’ you’ll take after me as the town is actually owned by individual members of my community. :rolleyes: Except for the minor thing about the explicit claim of the drunk individual coming into the barracks and the expressed outrage at the violation of personal space. Well, AS I HAVE STATED ON THIS BOARD BEFORE, I think it’s unfair that married personnel get more pay and more space for their family for the same or lesser jobs than single personnel, I still recognize the fact that the barracks is not an apartment. It is as I stated it. You are disingenous for comparing it to a remark about a hometown. You might also read above my questions, and MH’s, about why Syehoc didn’t do what he was obligated to and what about the CQ not doing his job either. > [@](#): > > Several people have shored up **Syehoc’s** (somewhat poorly written) argument that some MPs let their power go to their heads, just like some civilian police officers. Three things: [ul] [li]Some police does not constitute all police, nor does one MP constitute all MPs.[/li][li]It’s a bigoted remark to state “all MPs are assholes.”[/li][li]Syehoc, in his OP even said the MP might not have seen the other offender and yet still launched into a tirade against all MPs.[/li][/ul] > [@](#): > > So the poor kid He’s not a poor kid. He’s a Soldier and when it’s convenient, apparently, he wants the rest of us to recognize that fact. > [@](#): > > comes in and bitches about a traffic ticket and some of you (Monty, MrC) take after him like he’s just committed treason. Nope, not like he committed treason, but rather like he acted other than a good Soldier would have in a similar circumstance. > [@](#): > > It’s brainless, arrogant attitudes like those that make people leave the services in droves, and until the military services repair those faults they will continue to have difficulty making recruitment and retention goals. That’s just your brainless, arrogant opinion. > [@](#): > > **Syehoc** : For future reference, I strongly recommend you get in good with security on your base. Chances are pretty good that the 'Vette the MP ignored to tag you for your California roll was either a fellow MP or someone who parties with them. Not that I’d know, of course 😉 Nice of you to accuse the MP, who was doing his fucking job, of being unethical. \*Of course, you may very well be one of the folks who didn’t avail yourself of the advancement opportunity in the ATF program. If so, greater fool you. ---
**Author:** ![chique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@chique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chique)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/53 "2001-05-08T04:55:36Z")
**Manservant Hecubus** : First of all, you know I hate the Pit and you know I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you. I do disagree with you on a couple of points, however. I’m quite happy you didn’t resort to name-calling to make yours. > [@](#): > > Let’s dissect your argument. It shouldn’t be hard, cause it’s a shambles already. No, it shouldn’t be hard at all. If I was capable of argument I’d spend more time in GD, wouldn’t I? > [@](#): > > Firstly, when did I enter the discussion? … It was over the fact that Syehoc was whining and puling about MPs drinking alcohol on duty. Not, as you appear to have deluded yourself into thinking, over his ticket. At first, I thought that maybe the kid could learn from him mistake. Over time, I came to think that this was not the case. You are correct. But both you and Monty mercilessly tore into **Syehoc** so I lumped you in to the argument. I apologize. HOWEVER. As much as I admire you, MrC, you are occasionally incapable of understanding that some feel or think or were raised differently than you. An effective leader is capable of understanding those differences and adapting him/herself to the situation at hand. Work on that, will you? > [@](#): > > Your allegation that I treated him as if he had committed treason for his traffic offense is patently absurd. MrC, you KNOW how you get when you get your teeth into something. I believe that in this case you were inordinately mean. The ‘treason’ remark was hyperbole and you know it. > [@](#): > > I treated him as if he had witnessed a crime, and did not a damn thing about it other than complain that he had witnessed it to a bunch of people who have nothing to do with it. This, chique, is behavior absolutely bereft of sense. In one fell swoop, he has managed to destroy his credibility and his integrity. And you stoop to defend him? Shame on You. You bet I defend him. Someone has to. Did he make an error in judgment? Yup. Think he’ll make that same error again? I sincerely doubt it. I’d guess that there were several underage people drinking in those barracks and the accused and his buddies didn’t want to put them in jeopardy. (And before you point fingers at the UCMJ and drinking underage and responsibility I would like to refer you to your recent thread re your ‘orientation’ to Italy 😉 ) > [@](#): > > As for the fact that standing up for the law, and striking ignorance it it’s face makes the ignorant people leave the service in droves, I applaud that. I encourage it. Drive out the weak, the inept, the incapable. They are the weakest links. Either I wasn’t clear or you misunderstood. **Syehoc** obviously made some errors in judgment. But I believe that his superiors - and those who COULD be his superiors - should EDUCATE, not BERATE. Yeah, he screwed up. So tell him what he did wrong, what he should have done, and what to do next time - preferably in a manner befitting a leader, not a dog with his hackles up. > [@](#): > > And I would wager your life that if you put an armband that says MP on Syehoc, he’d be just as bad, if not worse, than the people he’s whining about now. After this go-round? Get real. As for you, **Monty** : > [@](#): > > True, I don’t suffer fools gladly. I am certain I could care less that you think me a fool for having the temerity to disagree with you. Give me a few while I think it over. > [@](#): > > I’m not your sweetheart, “pushbutton\*.” > [@](#): > > But you were a “pushbutton” and didn’t have to worry about little things like promotion tests to actually become a Petty Officer. While I should note that the particular CT field I entered was not a push-button rate (and that my advancement to E-5 was made on merit, and that my 5 1/2 years service time included a rate change to AT), the fact of the matter is that each of us has made assumptions about the other’s career that are untrue. I will not do that again. Your vulgar language and ad hominem attacks do not serve you well, however. > [@](#): > > Of course, you may very well be one of the folks who didn’t avail yourself of the advancement opportunity in the ATF program. If so, greater fool you. Yup, that was me. Advancement, promotions - those didn’t (don’t, here in the civilian world) do anything for me. I did my job, did it well, volunteered in the civilian communities in which I worked as much as possible, stood watch for those who needed the time (for free, I might add). An extra stripe on my shoulder didn’t give me the female equivalent of a hard on. > [@](#): > > At least your peers knew you weren’t chief material; > > > [@](#): > > > > Incorrect yet again. Every eval I got as a PN1 recommended me for immediate advancement to Chief. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > I was actually referring to your peers on the chief’s board, not your superiors at your commands. Will let that bit of inattention slide, though. > > > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > > > However, I shall not let your absolute fucking lie about the Chief’s board slide. The board is not composed of other PO1s. It’s composed of Chiefs, Senior Chief, Master Chiefs and Commissioned and Warrant Officers appointed to it. Too bad you’re evidently confusing the Navy Advancement System with the membership requirements for the Boy Scouts’ Order of the Arrow, in which Boy Scouts elect their peers to the Order. Maybe that’s the real reason you bailed, the Navy’s not enough of a Boy Scout camp for you. > > 1. Again with the language. > 2. Absolutely correct. The chief’s board is comprised of ranks you have not yet attained. I should have typed “I was actually referring to your **future** peers.” > 3. I am not physically capable of being a Boy Scout member. I did, however, spend a significant time in 4-H and the FFA. > > > [@](#): > > > > BTW, Monty, this bit… > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > BTW, it’s not YOUR barracks: It’s the unit barracks. You’re merely assigned to a bunk and attendant space there. > > > > …was truly disengenuous. I suppose if I ever make the mistake of referring to ‘my hometown’ you’ll take after me as the town is actually owned by individual members of my community. > > Except for the minor thing about the explicit claim of the drunk individual coming into the barracks and the expressed outrage at the violation of personal space. \*\*Well, AS I HAVE STATED ON THIS BOARD BEFORE, I think it’s unfair that married personnel get more pay and more space for their family for the same or lesser jobs than single personnel, I still recognize the fact that the barracks is not an apartment. \*\*\It is as I stated it. You are disingenous for comparing it to a remark about a hometown. [/quote] Here you are quibbling. If I were to say that people were selling crack in MY [sub]small[/sub] HOMETOWN it is sociologically similar to **Syehoc** saying a person in position of authority was slamming down in his barracks. I would hope that someone of your … intellect … would be capable of seeing the analogy. I’m not ignoring the rest of your post, Monty, but it’s pushing midnight and I’m tired. Will take the rest of it tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/54 "2001-05-08T19:02:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chique \* > **Manservant Hecubus** : > > First of all, you know I hate the Pit and you know I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you. I do disagree with you on a couple of points, however. I’m quite happy you didn’t resort to name-calling to make yours. And yet you actually did resort to character assassination to make your so-called points. “More like forced out” ring a bell with you? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Let’s dissect your argument. It shouldn’t be hard, cause it’s a shambles already. > > No, it shouldn’t be hard at all. If I was capable of argument I’d spend more time in GD, wouldn’t I? Very interesting. So you say you can’t argue? I concur. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Firstly, when did I enter the discussion? … It was over the fact that Syehoc was whining and puling about MPs drinking alcohol on duty. Not, as you appear to have deluded yourself into thinking, over his ticket. At first, I thought that maybe the kid could learn from him mistake. Over time, I came to think that this was not the case. > > You are correct. But both you and Monty mercilessly tore into **Syehoc** so I lumped you in to the argument. I apologize. You are incorrect. Neither of us “mercilessly tore into” him. What we did is point out his error. > [@](#): > > HOWEVER. > > As much as I admire you, MrC, you are occasionally incapable of understanding that some feel or think or were raised differently than you. An effective leader is capable of understanding those differences and adapting him/herself to the situation at hand. Work on that, will you? I find your mind reading skills lacking. I wonder what MrC thinks of them? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Your allegation that I treated him as if he had committed treason for his traffic offense is patently absurd. > > MrC, you KNOW how you get when you get your teeth into something. I believe that in this case you were inordinately mean. The ‘treason’ remark was hyperbole and you know it. Oh, when you make the remark it’s hyperbole and when MrC makes a remark it’s mercilessly tearing into. I’ll have to update my dictionary. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I treated him as if he had witnessed a crime, and did not a damn thing about it other than complain that he had witnessed it to a bunch of people who have nothing to do with it. This, chique, is behavior absolutely bereft of sense. In one fell swoop, he has managed to destroy his credibility and his integrity. And you stoop to defend him? Shame on You. > > You bet I defend him. Someone has to. Did he make an error in judgment? Yup. Think he’ll make that same error again? I sincerely doubt it. I’d guess that there were several underage people drinking in those barracks and the accused and his buddies didn’t want to put them in jeopardy. (And before you point fingers at the UCMJ and drinking underage and responsibility I would like to refer you to your recent thread re your ‘orientation’ to Italy 😉 ) I, at least, was not attendant at MrC’s Italian venue. I also explicitly asked Syehoc what about the CQ not peforming his duty also? And all the personnel who witnessed the drinking in the halls were derelict. That still does not excuse either the CQ or Syehoc of not performing their duty. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > As for the fact that standing up for the law, and striking ignorance it it’s face makes the ignorant people leave the service in droves, I applaud that. I encourage it. Drive out the weak, the inept, the incapable. They are the weakest links. > > Either I wasn’t clear or you misunderstood. Or maybe, just maybe, you were totally off the mark. Let’s not discount that third possibility. > [@](#): > > **Syehoc** obviously made some errors in judgment. But I believe that his superiors - and those who COULD be his superiors - should EDUCATE, not BERATE. Yeah, he screwed up. So tell him what he did wrong, what he should have done, and what to do next time - preferably in a manner befitting a leader, not a dog with his hackles up. Let’s see: how about an honest answer from Syehoc to my questions regarding the SDO and the CQ? An answer without the sarcastic response. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And I would wager your life that if you put an armband that says MP on Syehoc, he’d be just as bad, if not worse, than the people he’s whining about now. > > After this go-round? Get real. Actually, that’s one person’s opinion. I, as I mentioned above, hoped that Syehoc would discover that being an NCO is different than he (and apparently you, also) think it is, and then becomes a good NCO. > [@](#): > > As for you, **Monty** : > > > [@](#): > > > > True, I don’t suffer fools gladly. > > I am certain I could care less that you think me a fool for having the temerity to disagree with you. Give me a few while I think it over. I also could **n’t** care less about your ill-informed opinion. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m not your sweetheart, “pushbutton\*.” > > > [@](#): > > > > But you were a “pushbutton” and didn’t have to worry about little things like promotion tests to actually become a Petty Officer. > > While I should note that the particular CT field I entered was not a push-button rate (and that my advancement to E-5 was made on merit, and that my 5 1/2 years service time included a rate change to AT), the fact of the matter is that each of us has made assumptions about the other’s career that are untrue. I will not do that again. Well, you know, sometimes I make assumptions after someone makes an ad hominem attack on me. > [@](#): > > Your vulgar language and ad hominem attacks do not serve you well, however. Vulgar? Well, Old Salts are kind of known for salty language. Ad hominem? What about yours? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Of course, you may very well be one of the folks who didn’t avail yourself of the advancement opportunity in the ATF program. If so, greater fool you. > > Yup, that was me. Advancement, promotions - those didn’t (don’t, here in the civilian world) do anything for me. I did my job, did it well, volunteered in the civilian communities in which I worked as much as possible, stood watch for those who needed the time (for free, I might add). An extra stripe on my shoulder didn’t give me the female equivalent of a hard on. Nor did the chevrons on my sleeve give me the male equivalent of a hard-on. I see the military as military, as I stated above. You evidently think it should be a kinder, gentler corporate thing. I disagree wholeheartedly with such an idea. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > At least your peers knew you weren’t chief material; > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Incorrect yet again. Every eval I got as a PN1 recommended me for immediate advancement to Chief. > > > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > > > I was actually referring to your peers on the chief’s board, not your superiors at your commands. Will let that bit of inattention slide, though. > > > > > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall not let your absolute fucking lie about the Chief’s board slide. The board is not composed of other PO1s. It’s composed of Chiefs, Senior Chief, Master Chiefs and Commissioned and Warrant Officers appointed to it. Too bad you’re evidently confusing the Navy Advancement System with the membership requirements for the Boy Scouts’ Order of the Arrow, in which Boy Scouts elect their peers to the Order. Maybe that’s the real reason you bailed, the Navy’s not enough of a Boy Scout camp for you. > > > > 1. Again with the language. > > Yep. See above. Also, this is the Pit where that kind of language tends to get flung. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Absolutely correct. The chief’s board is comprised of ranks you have not yet attained. I should have typed “I was actually referring to your **future** peers.” > > In other words: You didn’t know what you were talking about but after I corrected you, you just remembered. Right. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. I am not physically capable of being a Boy Scout member. I did, however, spend a significant time in 4-H and the FFA. > > Good for you. All of which have nothing to do with the Navy. > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > BTW, Monty, this bit… > > > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > > > BTW, it’s not YOUR barracks: It’s the unit barracks. You’re merely assigned to a bunk and attendant space there. > > > > > > …was truly disengenuous. I suppose if I ever make the mistake of referring to ‘my hometown’ you’ll take after me as the town is actually owned by individual members of my community. > > > > Except for the minor thing about the explicit claim of the drunk individual coming into the barracks and the expressed outrage at the violation of personal space. \*\*Well, AS I HAVE STATED ON THIS BOARD BEFORE, I think it’s unfair that married personnel get more pay and more space for their family for the same or lesser jobs than single personnel, I still recognize the fact that the barracks is not an apartment. \*\*\It is as I stated it. You are disingenous for comparing it to a remark about a hometown. > > Here you are quibbling. If I were to say that people were selling crack in MY [sub]small[/sub] HOMETOWN it is sociologically similar to **Syehoc** saying a person in position of authority was slamming down in his barracks. I would hope that someone of your … intellect … would be capable of seeing the analogy. Maybe. See - I just said MAYBE. I tend to think it’s a bigger issue than “my barracks” equal “my hometown.” ALL personnel present in the barracks have the duty of enforcing the regulations, just as the MP had the DUTY of enforcing the regulation regarding Syehoc’s traffic violation. Not all residents of that small hometown have the obligation of enforcing the law; obeying it, yes, but not of enforcing it. Maybe if he’d passed “the attitude check” (as some cops call it), he would’ve gotten a verbal warning from the MP and not a ticket costing points from his base driving record. Maybe not. > [@](#): > > I’m not ignoring the rest of your post, Monty, but it’s pushing midnight and I’m tired. Will take the rest of it tomorrow. I wait with bated breath. Yes, I recognize that I’m using a wee bit of sarcasm in this particular post. This time, it’s kind of called for. Anyway, let’s just revisit the ad hominem thing for a second: I for one am glad for you that you got to E5 based on your merits (and whatever the cutoff scores were), but I’m curious as to your assertion regrading the Peter Principle. Is the fact that you only made it to E5 evidence _for_ or _against_ the Peter Principle? ---
**Author:** ![Rich\_G7subs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rich\_G7subs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rich_G7subs)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/55 "2001-05-08T20:55:25Z")
\>\>\>\>\>\>As for the fact that standing up for the law, and striking ignorance it it’s face makes the ignorant people leave the service in droves, I applaud that. I encourage it. Drive out the weak, the inept, the incapable. They are the weakest links.\<\<\< Manservant Hecubus Whoa…wait a minute there.That’s a pretty all encompassing comment.The same thought can be applied to staying in the service.One could say that people staying in are scared of life in the real world and are worried if they could make it alone on the outside.It’s personal preference as to the decision and EVERYONES reasons are different. I saw that I was GROSSLY underpaid in the service.I got out,had a job within 2 weeks in basically the same field.This job paid nearly twice what I was making in the service,and it never ONCE went to sea. I won’t ridicule anyones reasons to stay in just as I won’t disparage anyones reason to get out. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/56 "2001-05-08T21:58:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rich G7subs \* > **I saw that I was GROSSLY underpaid in the service.I got out,had a job within 2 weeks in basically the same field.This job paid nearly twice what I was making in the service,and it never ONCE went to sea.** So, I have an accountant handy from day to day, one whom I’ve asked to make comparison between what I was paid as a member of the military, and my rather cushy job these days. Taking benefits into account, cause that’s what accountants do, I made more in the military. Yes, my salary is double what my military salary was. However, it ain’t that much. ---
**Author:** ![Rich\_G7subs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rich\_G7subs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rich_G7subs)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2001, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/57 "2001-05-08T22:59:08Z")
\>\>\>\>Taking benefits into account, cause that’s what accountants do, I made more in the military. Yes, my salary is double what my military salary was. However, it ain’t that much.\<\<\<\< Hecubus Wow…you mean my 401k,bonus ,Medical,Dental,Prescription and Eyeglass bennies aren’t as good as the Military’s? I get to pick what doctors I go to (well,out of the plan participating physicians anyways).The only Military bennies I am missing are Housing (Gee,I wanna live in a cinder block shack),and commisary. I pay aprox. 1700$/year for health benefits.I dunno what BAQ is these days,but it sure wouldn’t pay my mortgage. I really think the Services should start paying their people better if they want to keep them.I just looked at The Navy’s 2001 Pay Chart, I’m making more than an O-6 with 18 years of service(including sea pay,Sub pay and medical benefits). That ain’t right. ---
**Author:** ![chique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@chique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chique)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/58 "2001-05-09T00:15:01Z")
Alrighty, a two-parter here. To continue from last night …… > [@](#): > > Well, AS I HAVE STATED ON THIS BOARD BEFORE, I think it’s unfair that married personnel get more pay and more space for their family for the same or lesser jobs than single personnel …. I don’t follow you around the boards to see what you’ve posted. Never mind that I don’t know what this bit has to do with the kid calling his barracks HIS. Never mind that I have NO FREAKIN’ CLUE why you have your panties in such a bunch over this turn of phrase. My hometown, my last command, my apartment, my barracks, my ship, my boat. See? Just a turn of phrase. > [@](#): > > It’s brainless, arrogant attitudes like those that make people leave the services in droves, and until the military services repair those faults they will continue to have difficulty making recruitment and retention goals. > > > [@](#): > > > > That’s just your brainless, arrogant opinion. Yup. It’s also the reason that many of my friends and acquaintances got out. > [@](#): > > Nice of you to accuse the MP, who was doing his fucking job, of being unethical. I wasn’t being nice. I was speaking from personal experience with SPs. The ones who let their buddies go without tickets. _Some_ MPs/SPs do that, you know. * * * And from your most recent post (the first half of which I’m ignoring; MrC is a big boy and devestatingly capable of flaming me himself. I’m only concerned with you, Monty.) …. > [@](#): > > I am certain I could care less that you think me a fool for having the temerity to disagree with you. Give me a few while I think it over. > > > [@](#): > > > > I also could **n’t** care less about your ill-informed opinion If I _couldn’t_ care less I wouldn’t be arguing. I, however, _could_ care less, so here I still am. > [@](#): > > \ … the fact of the matter is that each of us has made assumptions about the other’s career that are untrue. I will not do that again. > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, you know, sometimes I make assumptions after someone makes an ad hominem attack on me. Well, you know, sometimes I read posts by people that piss me off and I hit submit before I cool off. Doesn’t happen very often. And, like I said, I will not do that again. > [@](#): > > Of course, you may very well be one of the folks who didn’t avail yourself of the advancement opportunity in the ATF program. If so, greater fool you. > > > [@](#): > > > > An extra stripe on my shoulder didn’t give me the female equivalent of a hard on. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Nor did the chevrons on my sleeve give me the male equivalent of a hard-on. Heh. Must’ve given you something or you wouldn’t be calling me a ‘fool’ for not availing myself of alternate advancement opportunities. > [@](#): > > I se the military as military, as I stated above. You evidently think it should be a kinder gentler corporate thing This is interesting. I’ve said “Considering the manner in which you used your 20 years of military experience to ‘counsel’ Syehoc I highly doubt that.” I’ve said “An effective leader is capable of understanding differences and adapting him/herself to the situation at hand.” I’ve said “I believe that his superiors – and those who COULD be his superiors – should EDUCATE, not BERATE.” If you wish to think of this as a ‘kinder gentler corporate’ thing be my guest, but these are leadership qualities that work both inside and outside the military. > [@](#): > > 1. Absolutely correct. The chief’s board is comprised of ranks you have not yet attained. I should have typed “I was actually referring to your **future** peers.” > > > [@](#): > > > > In other words: You didn’t know what you were talking about but after I corrected you, you just remembered. Right. No. Actually, what I should have typed was “your **future** peers.” > [@](#): > > 1. I am not physically capable of being a Boy Scout member. I did, however, spend a significant time in 4-H and the FFA. > > > [@](#): > > > > Good for you. All of which have nothing to do with the Navy. Yeah, I couldn’t figure out why you brought up the Boy Scouts, either. A glance at my user name should’ve made it eminently clear that probably have no knowledge of Boy Scout advancement. > [@](#): > > Is the fact that you only made it to E5 evidence for or against the Peter Principle? Neither. It’s evidence that the Navy was easy and bored the snot out of me. I had to get out and find something that would challenge me. And I’m bored now, so I’m going to exit this little exercise. See ya. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Cynical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@Mr.Cynical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Cynical)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/59 "2001-05-09T00:39:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rich G7subs \* > **\>\>\>\>Taking benefits into account, cause that’s what accountants do, I made more in the military. Yes, my salary is double what my military salary was. However, it ain’t that much.\<\<\<\< Hecubus > Wow…you mean my 401k,bonus ,Medical,Dental,Prescription and Eyeglass bennies aren’t as good as the Military’s? I get to pick what doctors I go to (well,out of the plan participating physicians anyways).The only Military bennies I am missing are Housing (Gee,I wanna live in a cinder block shack),and commisary.** Rich, you would be well-served to notice, especially since you quoted me, that I took ownership of my statements. That means that I stated them as they apply to me, and NOT as they apply to you. My 401k is going unused. I invest on my own. I don’t get a bonus. Medical, dental, and prescription benefits in the military are superior to what I pay for now. I do not need eyeglasses. However, if I did, the benefits would not compare in that the Air Force is a bit more lenient than other branches in their restrictions on eyewear. The homes I have lived in in the military were not cinderblock shacks. They were well-maintained, attractive single family homes. The community feeling was stronger on-base. It’s the only place I’ve seen kids trick-or-treating en masse since I was a kid. I like that. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827/60 "2001-05-09T06:07:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chique \* > Alrighty, a two-parter here. To continue from last night …… > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, AS I HAVE STATED ON THIS BOARD BEFORE, I think it’s unfair that married personnel get more pay and more space for their family for the same or lesser jobs than single personnel …. > > I don’t follow you around the boards to see what you’ve posted. Never mind that I don’t know what this bit has to do with the kid calling his barracks HIS. Never mind that I have NO FREAKIN’ CLUE why you have your panties in such a bunch over this turn of phrase. My hometown, my last command, my apartment, my barracks, my ship, my boat. See? Just a turn of phrase. Revisit above where I said “maybe.” I swear you’re either illiterate or obtuse. I’m guessing at obtuse. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s brainless, arrogant attitudes like those that make people leave the services in droves, and until the military services repair those faults they will continue to have difficulty making recruitment and retention goals. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > That’s just your brainless, arrogant opinion. > > Yup. It’s also the reason that many of my friends and acquaintances got out. I could make the observation that not all such decisions are so simple. But if you like making simple declarations for major decisions in one’s life, go for it. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Nice of you to accuse the MP, who was doing his fucking job, of being unethical. > > I wasn’t being nice. I was speaking from personal experience with SPs. The ones who let their buddies go without tickets. _Some_ MPs/SPs do that, you know. I’m quite sure everyone on the planet knows that SOME police, military or civilian, do exactly that. BY NO MEANS DOES THAT CONSTITUTE ALL MPS BEING ASSHOLES! See above about obtuse and you. > [@](#): > > And from your most recent post (the first half of which I’m ignoring; MrC is a big boy and devestatingly capable of flaming me himself. I’m only concerned with you, Monty.) …. Whooppee! My own pit subthread. I’ll swoon. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I am certain I could care less that you think me a fool for having the temerity to disagree with you. Give me a few while I think it over. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > I also could **n’t** care less about your ill-informed opinion > > If I _couldn’t_ care less I wouldn’t be arguing. I, however, _could_ care less, so here I still am. So you care about defending someone accusing ALL MPs but don’t care about facts? Well, if it works for you… > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \ … the fact of the matter is that each of us has made assumptions about the other’s career that are untrue. I will not do that again. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Well, you know, sometimes I make assumptions after someone makes an ad hominem attack on me. > > Well, you know, sometimes I read posts by people that piss me off and I hit submit before I cool off. Doesn’t happen very often. And, like I said, I will not do that again. Then repost, with the appropriate corrections, your previous postings. I will view failure to so as not posting in an honest and ethical manner. I, as you obviously noticed since you quoted me, did mention that one of my observations about you might not be correct. But I’m quite sure you won’t care about this observation either. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Of course, you may very well be one of the folks who didn’t avail yourself of the advancement opportunity in the ATF program. If so, greater fool you. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > An extra stripe on my shoulder didn’t give me the female equivalent of a hard on. > > > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > > > Nor did the chevrons on my sleeve give me the male equivalent of a hard-on. > > Heh. Must’ve given you something or you wouldn’t be calling me a ‘fool’ for not availing myself of alternate advancement opportunities. Well, since you didn’t post the “A” after the “CT” I guess I just assumed you really wanted to be included in the more prestigious CT ratings. I really don’t know if you were CTA or not so I’ll drop my assumptions about you, also. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I se the military as military, as I stated above. You evidently think it should be a kinder gentler corporate thing > > This is interesting. I’ve said “Considering the manner in which you used your 20 years of military experience to ‘counsel’ Syehoc I highly doubt that.” I’ve said “An effective leader is capable of understanding differences and adapting him/herself to the situation at hand.” I’ve said “I believe that his superiors – and those who COULD be his superiors – should EDUCATE, not BERATE.” If you wish to think of this as a ‘kinder gentler corporate’ thing be my guest, but these are leadership qualities that work both inside and outside the military. There are also leadership methods used in the military that work in the military which are not permitted in some, if not all, civilian companies. Since I’m just concerned with a military issue here, I’m really not all that interested in what the civilian world has to say about the style of correction. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Absolutely correct. The chief’s board is comprised of ranks you have not yet attained. I should have typed “I was actually referring to your **future** peers.” > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > In other words: You didn’t know what you were talking about but after I corrected you, you just remembered. Right. > > No. Actually, what I should have typed was “your **future** peers.” Well, than you really should repost, with the appropriate corrections, your remark about “if the Chiefs say it’s true.” But then, since the Chiefs, my future peers you know, recommended me for “EARLY PROMOTE” to Chief, that blows that argument of yours right out of the water. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. I am not physically capable of being a Boy Scout member. I did, however, spend a significant time in 4-H and the FFA. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Good for you. All of which have nothing to do with the Navy. > > Yeah, I couldn’t figure out why you brought up the Boy Scouts, either. A glance at my user name should’ve made it eminently clear that probably have no knowledge of Boy Scout advancement. And I couldn’t figure out how a Petty Officer could be so incorrect about the composition of the Selection Board. The user name is not always a valid indicator of an individual’s gender. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Is the fact that you only made it to E5 evidence for or against the Peter Principle? > > Neither. It’s evidence that the Navy was easy and bored the snot out of me. I had to get out and find something that would challenge me. I’m sure the feeling was mutual (not the bit about easy, the bit about boring). > [@](#): > > And I’m bored now, so I’m going to exit this little exercise. See ya. I’m guessing here that the real reason is you just realized that your bit about “if the Chief says it’s so” kind of derailed your “argument.” But let’s go ahead and look at the remarks of Syehoc’s I’m concerned with, as a leader" 1. “Millitary Police are given way too much power for their age/rank.” He has a right to that opinion. You will also note that later in the thread he showed that he was, in all likelihood “too young” for his current rank based on non-waiver advancement criteria. As I mentioned above “what’s good for the MP is good for the driver.” 1. “Maybe I don’t care.” Thus showing that he does not care what the actual facts of the event he related are, he just wants to castigate an entire group of people based on the actions of one individual member of that group–an individual who was performing his duty. 1. “One of these guys had the nerve to come to MY barracks, WHILE ON DUTY, looking for a place to party. He was stroling around from group to group for about an hour…DRINKING…and then he and his squad car drove on there merry way. I was appauled.” Both the individuals assigned space in the barracks and the individuals assigned duties as Charge of Quarters are responsible for not only obeying the regulations but also for enforcing same. That kind of speaks for itself, IMHO. Anyway, MrC already discussed obligation. 1. “Call the Duty Officer, and wake the poor guy up? I didn’t have the heart.” The SDO stands a 24 hour watch and is supposed to be awake while on watch. That Syehoc assumed the SDO is asleep shows that he has no concern for (a) his base, if his assertion is true, or (b) no concern for the facts, if his assertion is false. Since he waffled on said assertion, I’ll go with (b). 1. “You’re probably right though, I’m not sure what the reason for my not saying anything at the time was, but the way things work around here, it probably wouldn’t have made a difference.” The reason for his not saying anything at the time is obvious to a Leader (yep, I mean MrC and me, and a few other folks besides): he was apathetic and just flat out didn’t care that the person was violating a regulation. Kind of like the attitude he’s accused ALL MPs of having. 1. “I, fortunately, am not an NCO. This is why alot of the complaints that I make are not taken seriously.” Thus accusing the base Chain of Command, and the Inspector General, of not giving credence at all to complaints made by junior personnel. If his complaints were not taken seriously, they were treated in such manner based on their merits or lack thereof - not based on rank. 1. “Punishments such as reduction in rank and bad conduct discharges are reserved for crimes to the caliber of drug offences and going AWOL.” Either a falsehood or merely a mistake. I pointed Syehoc to where he could get the correct information. 1. “My appologies, I guess whining is the only way I know to retaliate.” An admission that his statements quoted above are whining. It’s also of benefit here to point out that even the Army (yes, even the Army) has both an informal and a formal grievance procedure. I indicated some of his options under the grievance system earlier in this thread. That you didn’t recognize that as education, chique, shows that you’re not too quick on the uptake - at least in this thread. 1. “What I also think, taking from your narrow thoughts on the way the army works, is that you weren’t a very good leader. I bet you had a hard time relating with your soldiers.” It’s quite an old thing to many an NCO, Petty Officer, and Chief to hear the nonrates say “you’re not a good leader” before they really understand leadership. I trust the foregoing enumerated items show that Syehoc, at the moment, doesn’t understand that to be a good leader, one must first be a good follower. I learned that, chique; did you? 1. “I do think you have a valid point, alot of them actually.” Finally an admission that my points (educating him, you know) are valid. 1. “I’m an 88M, basically a truck driver.” Actually, an 88M1O is not “basically a truck driver.” He is basically a Soldier, albeit a Soldier whose primary duty is to drive trucks. I see a distinction between the two statements. 1. “Don’t jump all over my back because you have all this unresolved anger toward “bad soldiers”, you fucking burnout.” These prejudicial remarks were also dealt with in this thread. I reiterate that I, for one, hope that Syehoc comes to the conclusion that an NCO, and an MP for that matter, are not as he apparently currently considers, but are something quite different and that he turns into both a good Soldier and a good NCO. Finally, just for chique: From Merriam-Webster: > [@](#): > > ed_u_cate (verb) -cat_ed; -cat_ing > > [Middle English, to rear, from Latin educatus, past participle of educare to rear, educate, from educere to lead forth – more at EDUCE] > > verb transitive > > First appeared 15th Century > > 1 a : to provide schooling for > > b : to train by formal instruction and supervised practice esp. in a skill, trade, or profession > > 2 a : to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically esp. by instruction > > b : to provide with information : INFORM > > 3 : to persuade or condition to feel, believe, or act in a desired way \<~ the public to support our position\> > > verb intransitive > > : to educate a person or thing > > synonym see TEACH & > [@](#): > > teach (verb) taught; teach\*ing > > [Middle English techen to show, instruct, from Old English taecan; akin to Old English tacn sign – more at TOKEN] > > verb transitive > > First appeared before 12th Century > > 1 a : to cause to know something \ > > b : to cause to know how \ > > c : to accustom to some action or attitude \<~ students to think for themselves\> > > d : to cause to know the disagreeable consequences of some action \ > > 2 : to guide the studies of > > 3 : to impart the knowledge of \<~ algebra\> > > 4 a : to instruct by precept, example, or experience > > b : to make known and accepted \ > > 5 : to conduct instruction regularly in \<~ school\> > > verb intransitive > > : to provide instruction : act as a teacher > > usage see LEARN > synonym TEACH, INSTRUCT, EDUCATE, TRAIN, DISCIPLINE, SCHOOL mean to cause to acquire knowledge or skill. TEACH applies to any manner of imparting information or skill so that others may learn \. INSTRUCT suggests methodical or formal teaching \. EDUCATE implies development of the mind \. TRAIN stresses instruction and drill with a specific end in view \. DISCIPLINE implies training in habits of order and precision \. SCHOOL implies training or disciplining esp. in what is hard to master \. Both of these can be brought about by correction (definition from same source): > [@](#): > > cor_rec_tion (noun) > > First appeared 14th Century > > 1 : the action or an instance of correcting: as > > a : AMENDMENT, RECTIFICATION > > b : REBUKE, PUNISHMENT > > c : a bringing into conformity with a standard > > d : NEUTRALIZATION, COUNTERACTION \<~ of acidity\> > > 2 : a decline in market price or business activity following and counteracting a rise > > 3 a : something substituted in place of what is wrong \ > > b : a quantity applied by way of correcting (as for adjustment of an instrument) > > 4 : the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders through a program involving penal custody, parole, and probation; also : the administration of such treatment as a matter of public policy – usu. used in pl. > > – cor_rec_tion\*al (adjective) I refer chique to definition 1b. Did I leave anything out? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mps-are-assholes/63827.md?page=4)