- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Your post is much ado about nothing
Posted by Ken Newans from Canada on April 20, 1999 at 00:55:22:
In Reply to: Generally Speaking, In all Contexts... posted by Rob Clarke on April 19, 1999 at 21:44:17:
Your entire message is predicated on the assumption that I have a problem with military discipine. You have lost sight of what we are discussing. A soldier, on a civilian message board, posted the name of a man who ran for public office, and who also once upon a time was a general. Said man forgot to address said General as General. Had it happened on a parade square somewhere, then there would be a problem that needed correcting. Not using his rank in the circumstances I just described is not indicative of a problem at all.
Your response, then, is quite bizarre and coming from left field. I suspect you an RCR "never pass a fault" and a RAC yourself.
You draw many bizarre inferences from my brief post, including the assumption that I have a "pro-British" outlook because I merely cited a comment I believe it was Strome Galloway, another RCR, though it may have been Vokes or one of the other more imaginative generals about how Canadian generals were bland and humorless, referring to each other by last name only and not by their first names. You also seem to think that I said Montgomery knew all his men by their first names. I suggest you read my post again...and then count to ten before responding. I meant, by my post, that the bad generals tended to act in this way - but not that calling their staffs by their last name was what made them bad generals. It was merely a coincidental indicator of how a bad general operated. Look at Tommy Burns, for example. On the other hand, Simonds, our best general, was that way as well. So there is no hard and fast "theory" at work there at all, just an observation based on the little bit of research I have done on the matter.
As for people using their rank when identifying themselves on this forum - they aren‘t asking to be referred to by their ranks, merely letting the rest of us know their level of experience and expertise. A Corporal has a much different outlook on military life than a Captain. Your statement that their rank is important to them implying, and correct me if I am wrong, important to them in the context of this forum is rather a silly one, given that. They, and I, don‘t give a rat‘s *** whether they are called "Jules" or "General".
Your last bizarre leap of logic has me challenged to provide an example of an organization that ignores problems. Can‘t think of one, but then again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I do agree with a military that follows the right rules and encourages its soldiers to think for themselves. Gassing Jews because you are ordered to is the same as abusing Somali prisoners because you are ordered to. I wonder what kind of cult devoted to slavishly following orders that was? Obviously, I don‘t encourage that kind of thing. But again, what does that have to do with the simple act of posting to a message board?
Should soldiers obey legal orders? Of course they should. Was the individual in question here under orders to use a General‘s rank while posting about him? No. You are obviously keen on expounding on your views about leadership. Good. The Canadian Army needs that kind of a debate. But your eagerness has made you look foolish here, jumping into a battle that doesn‘t even exist.
So basically, your idea that I have some sort of theory about "pick and choose" discipline is a lot of nonsense. I do suggest you read my post again.
Posted by Ken Newans from Canada on April 20, 1999 at 00:55:22:
In Reply to: Generally Speaking, In all Contexts... posted by Rob Clarke on April 19, 1999 at 21:44:17:
Your entire message is predicated on the assumption that I have a problem with military discipine. You have lost sight of what we are discussing. A soldier, on a civilian message board, posted the name of a man who ran for public office, and who also once upon a time was a general. Said man forgot to address said General as General. Had it happened on a parade square somewhere, then there would be a problem that needed correcting. Not using his rank in the circumstances I just described is not indicative of a problem at all.
Your response, then, is quite bizarre and coming from left field. I suspect you an RCR "never pass a fault" and a RAC yourself.
You draw many bizarre inferences from my brief post, including the assumption that I have a "pro-British" outlook because I merely cited a comment I believe it was Strome Galloway, another RCR, though it may have been Vokes or one of the other more imaginative generals about how Canadian generals were bland and humorless, referring to each other by last name only and not by their first names. You also seem to think that I said Montgomery knew all his men by their first names. I suggest you read my post again...and then count to ten before responding. I meant, by my post, that the bad generals tended to act in this way - but not that calling their staffs by their last name was what made them bad generals. It was merely a coincidental indicator of how a bad general operated. Look at Tommy Burns, for example. On the other hand, Simonds, our best general, was that way as well. So there is no hard and fast "theory" at work there at all, just an observation based on the little bit of research I have done on the matter.
As for people using their rank when identifying themselves on this forum - they aren‘t asking to be referred to by their ranks, merely letting the rest of us know their level of experience and expertise. A Corporal has a much different outlook on military life than a Captain. Your statement that their rank is important to them implying, and correct me if I am wrong, important to them in the context of this forum is rather a silly one, given that. They, and I, don‘t give a rat‘s *** whether they are called "Jules" or "General".
Your last bizarre leap of logic has me challenged to provide an example of an organization that ignores problems. Can‘t think of one, but then again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.
I do agree with a military that follows the right rules and encourages its soldiers to think for themselves. Gassing Jews because you are ordered to is the same as abusing Somali prisoners because you are ordered to. I wonder what kind of cult devoted to slavishly following orders that was? Obviously, I don‘t encourage that kind of thing. But again, what does that have to do with the simple act of posting to a message board?
Should soldiers obey legal orders? Of course they should. Was the individual in question here under orders to use a General‘s rank while posting about him? No. You are obviously keen on expounding on your views about leadership. Good. The Canadian Army needs that kind of a debate. But your eagerness has made you look foolish here, jumping into a battle that doesn‘t even exist.
So basically, your idea that I have some sort of theory about "pick and choose" discipline is a lot of nonsense. I do suggest you read my post again.
