Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) snipped-for-privacy@spammyspam.com (xrongor) puts out: claim that us soldiers are re-enlisting
OK, let's clear something up first. By the "us", are you meaning as in part of a group, meaning that you are a soldier (or military) also? Or do you mean "US" or "U.S", as in United States?
Yeah, sometimes people don't know what you mean anyway.
JOAT
We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.
- Nanny Ogg
to be perfectly clear (after the dave fiasco im going to try and make sure to be as clear as possible), todd was/is claiming that the U.S.(United States) soldiers are re-enlisting at a 'high'rate ..... in the sentence you are referring to, i was repeating what he had claimed. so yes, the us means U.S.
randy
dave has wrongly claimed i was trying to use the article prove re-enlistment rates were low (which i never did), and used the exact same arguments i made to show why the article doesnt really have ANY meat to it, against me. then he wonders why the argument has gone circular. im starting to feel like im picking on a slow child or something...
as for the tap dancing, dave has spewed so much garbage at me ive had to tap my way around it.
so anyway. i dont know who im trying to convince.
randy
...and a few counters:
-Doug
Because I didn't notice it until Randy started citing the article.
Not surprising. But, without the raw numbers this is all just whistling into the wind.
Now wait just a second here. I said that you bringing this up when we were talking about enlistment rates was, what were the words, "irrelevant at best and disingenous at worst" I think. It's like seeing this:
Todd: "Idaho farmers claim that potato sales are doing well." Randy: "But McDonalds has missed their french fry sales goal this year, but beat it last year".
Why bring up french fry sales goal performance in the context of potato sales, if not to try to argue against the original statement?
There ya go, go for the personal attack, that always helps your cause.
Riiiiight. Counter a statement with a fuzzy response, and _I_ am the one spewing garbage when I call you on it.
These are both about the air force. The discussion, IIRC, was about soldiers (i.e. army), not airmen (i.e. air force).
scott
The second is about the Air Force. The first link was about the military in general. Take a minute and read all four parts in the first link.
-Doug
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:52:13 -0600, "xrongor" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Some caps and stops would not hurt a better understanding (and make your opinion carry more weight perhaps.)
is this what this is about? is this the part you missed? you think i brought the article into the discussion? sorry. todd cited it. i simply carried it over to this thread. it was his 'proof' that enlistment rates went down. i know you read the other thread because of your tap dancing references. did you simply forget or are you being purposefully obtuse?
all-volunteer Army.
duh
randy
FFS, Randy, "quoted it" rather than "cited it" then?
Seems it's always word-games with you, Randy. I can't see the point.
call me silly, but if someone thinks what i have to say carries more weight because i use more caps or write U.S. every time instead of us (and lets face it, it wasnt that far of a stretch, JT got it on the first go...) then that person is likely to think someone else has something more important to say if they use a nice font. then we have to make letterheads and fancy sigs to promote our image of worthiness. im not going to change the way ive posted to bbs and newsgroups for 15 years just for an aura of respectability.
that said, you're probably right
randy
While I'm the last person to post a grammar, speeling, or punctuation flame, I must say that it doesn't make your message more likely to convince anyone if you can't be bothered to at least attempt to get those right. Hard to tell if the writer is ignorant, or just careless, but either way it doesn't add anything to the effectiveness.
Before you jump all over me for this, I've more than several times said the same sort of thing to people I agree with - "You're not helping our cause with that sort of message" kind of posts.
Your choice, of course. The reader's choice on how to interpret the lack of whatever, of course.
duh
randy
...in continuing to play word games with someone who uses the same article to make their points, as they criticize another for using.
Nice creative snipping, by the way. I notice you completely ignored the french fries analogy. Why would that be, Randy, because I called you on it and you don't care to acknowledge same?
I can't speak for the Army and what their personnel force is at or headed, but the Navy has just released a message allowing personnel to exit the service 12 months early due to overmanning concerns. What was really unusual about this message was that there were very few restrictions placed on any of the Navy "ratings", just about any and all could be eligible. Re-enlistment is up, recruiting up, reserve requests to convert to active is up (which has all led to promotion rates dropping) and a need to let some people go. But like I said this is the Navy not the Army.
Wed, Jul 14, 2004, 12:25pm (EDT-2) snipped-for-privacy@spammyspam.com (xrongor) puts out:
Doug Winterburn provides:
Air Force reenlistment rates are always significantly higher than those for the Army. There are a variety of reasons for that, including more technical training, no need for grunts, less need for front line discipline, and on. Oddly enough, Marine Corps rates are also higher, usually significantly.
I'm not sure reenlistment rates reflect satisfaction within the military as to their mission as much as they reflect the economy at a particular period, along with visible opportunities to advance within any of the services...added to pride of service. Reenlistment bonuses help, too, though not as much as the military might like.
Oddly enough, the Air Force and Navy are both planning reductions in personnel numbers next year--I seem to recall the Air Force getting ready to drop 5600 people from their overall roles. The Army is looking to, as they say, turn "Blue To Green". They want anyone over E5 who is released in the program.
For a general look at military matters, try military.com.
Charlie Self "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Doug Winterburn responds:
The first link was about a draft, written by a former AF 1st Sgt., who served his entire time in the volunteer military. Given that combination, I'm not at all sure he's the best source for an opinion stating the draft will never come back. He can't see how it would be done, but, then, he doesn't appear to know how it WAS done for upwards of 30 years. When it comes back, expect the same screw-ups and dissatisfactions and complaints, tripled, because women will now be included.
Charlie Self "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Well, not to diminish their efforts, but becoming a rifleman is hardly a career choice. It's a young, single man's field.
Promotions and bonuses tied to the "needs of the service" are used to overcome shortages in the skilled fields, as well as lowering the testing threshold for entry into them. This almost guarantees an ebb and flow as incentives fill a field at a certain level, then shed personnel at the next level because it is overmanned. The service has an up or out policy which denies reenlistment to those who fail promotion, even though it will not promote unless the position exists.
Add the outside world into the equation, and it becomes even more complicated.
Then there are the purely bone-headed policies which drive people out. One of the best co-pilots I even had was an EE by training. As the end of his commitment approached, the Air Force was offering bonuses for EEs, since there was a shortage. Long story short, the wings he wore were more important than the "needs" of the service. With no shortage of UPT grads to take his place, he could not work in his preferred field, but left the service. Even happened to a navigator I flew with. All he wanted to do was change aircraft, not "waste his expensive training."
I, for >
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.