Given he has done nothing aabout the desense of marrige act why do they still think he is going to do anything?

I highly recommend reading "I Didn't Tell, It Didn't Matter," published today in The Washington Post.

The URL is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100902570.html

IF? what this guy says is true all need to be punished.

On the other hand as a hetrosexual male I have been hit on by gays that knew I was straight. I wouldn't want to worry about that issue while I was in the military.

Reminder (I've said this before):

As a former Nuke submariner, I can state with certainty:

1) There are gay men in the Navy, and there have been for decades. They are known by the rest of the crew. It is impossible - especially in submarines - to keep your personal life secret when people must know who you are, in detail, as a condition of trust.

2) Distractions are instant killers aboard ship. Whether the crewmember next to you is male or female, dreaming about the hottie will kill you. This is almost impossible to convey to someone who has never loaded a gun, missile, or torpedo. This is not the movies or some precious idea of yours, and it leads to point #3.

3) Your worth to the crew and the ship determines your personal as well as professional status. The moment you put your personal life before that of the ship, you are an unperson to the crew.

There are scammers, liars, etc., in the services, as there are in any other walk of life. These are exposed rapidly in any condition of stressful duty, and it is one of the surprises in store for the recruit that the veterans all know each other so closely.

Deplorable conduct. I'm with David; all those responsible need to be punished.

Call me biased, but for some reason I find that false allegations of homosexuality are used as a threat to keep raped servicewomen from reporting assault more troubling than your tale of being hit on by big scary gays.

My father is a retired military officer, and as the former leader of several commands has dealt with personnel issues throughout his career. Several of his colleagues were homosexuals, as were many of the soldiers under his command, although for obvious reasons they kept quiet. Having a homosexual soldier under your command is not nearly as much of a problem as having a soldier's wife or husband, or a soldier, having an affair with another servicemember.

As for being hit on by gays, I have been hit on by men when they knew I was unavailable. It was also uncomfortable and unwelcome. What exactly is your point? Sexual relationships (or any relationship) that is against the MCC is damaging for morale, regardless of the genital configuration of the people involved.

> IF? what this guy says is true all
> need to be punished.

> all those responsible
> need to be punished.

Oh... OK... We'll just PUNISH everybody. Then it will be fine.

Your casual use of the word "all" betrays the fantasy of control which is completely inappropriate. You think you can just walk up to a generation of recruits, tell them how this is supposed to work, and that will be that. This is profoundly ignorant of human nature, including your own.

One doesn't have to read a whole lot about the psychology of hazing to know that it serves important, ineradicable, and unpleasant functions. Men who are about to kill and risk their lives want to know if the new men around them can be trusted, so those people are going to be tested. Badges and ribbons on the uniform won't do the job. These guys want to sniff and tussle and fight with each other until they know, on an animal level, who's sitting next to them in the foxhole.

All the policy in the world will not make that go away, especially if that policy comes from people clucking priggishly in stateside blogs.

I suspect most of those complaining are sophisticated enough to know this... In truth, to incapacitate the armed services is an acceptable compromise for their infantile worldviews. You'd prefer that we all agree that war is something icky from our past, so that we can just stop, because by golly, we just know better nowadays... But if we can't stop being meanies, you'll be satisfied if we're militarily incompetent.

Of all the ways warfare can test character, sexuality is the least of it.

Crid writes: One doesn't have to read a whole lot about the psychology of hazing to know that it serves important, ineradicable, and unpleasant functions. Men who are about to kill and risk their lives want to know if the new men around them can be trusted, so those people are going to be tested. Badges and ribbons on the uniform won't do the job. These guys want to sniff and tussle and fight with each other until they know, on an animal level, who's sitting next to them in the foxhole.

Of course. Because we all know that the military never, ever, ever puts the recruits through vigorous training that would allow them to see and evaluate each other's mettle. There just has to be hazing involved, otherwise the recruits just won't know who they're in the foxhole next to.

Yeah, right.

That has to be about the lamest justification I've ever heard for hazing, Crid. Were you ever actually in the service?

And by the way, I don't think he was suggesting that each and every new recruit needs to be punished. However, if this man is able to point the finger at certain directly responsible parties and is backed up by credible witnesses, I think punishment is in order, don't you? During the four years I served in the army, hazing was punished. So sorry to burst your bubble. We even had E.O. appointees in every unit available who were trained in addressing that very issue.

The more important element (and soldiers do know this) is the ability to trust the person next to you in the foxhole. If you've been participant in a ritual bullying such as described by the article, it just may not be a question of whether or not you survive the engagement, but where, exactly, the bullet that kills you comes from.

"Honest, Captain! He got in front of my weapon!"

And if the direct approach is not available, there's always more subtle means.

"Oh, gee. I forgot to tell him about that landmine."

Your fascination with the interpersonal politics of deadly force is gossipy, tawdry and mundane.

And your ideas regarding the supposed necessity of hazing is ignorant.

(Is this worth pursuing? No, but it's a quiet Sunday in here... May as well draw some blood.)

OK, Patrick- What am I "ignoring"?

Already told you. How dense are you?

You seem to think that hazing has a necessity to determine the caliber of the troops sharing the same foxhole, ignoring the fact that these men have been through rigorous training together and had the opportunity to see each other at their best, and worst, even at varying levels of exhaustion. At least when I went through basic training and AIT. What, exactly, can hazing teach you about someone that you don't already know under those circumstances?

You're also ignoring the fact that such behavior is a violation of the USMJ in the military. Granted, in this case, the unit in question is turned a blind eye to the harassment involved.

But let us not forget how the interrogators (which was also my job when I was in the army) were dealt with when busted for hazing in Abu Ghraib.

Lynndie England, for instance, was sentenced to three years and received a dishonorable discharge, though paroled after a year and a half. Charles Graner got ten years and a dishonorable.

What happened to England and Graner and their despicable cohorts is the rule, not the exception. What you read here was a case in which justice failed.

Take it from someone who put in his four years, as an interrogator, with a Top Secret Clearance, SCI nomination. Hazing has no place in the military, and if you think it's part of the indoctrination process, you're sorely mistaken.

In basic training, AIT, and PLDC (three training schools in which all new recruits attend), I was never hazed and never saw anyone hazed, nor had I ever heard of anyone being hazed in any training school, and if I did, I would make sure that it was reported through the proper channels.

The various military training schools are far more than sufficient to determine everything you need to know about who's sharing your foxhole.

Sorry, that's UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Eh, may as well. AIT is Advanced Individual Training. After Basic Training, AIT is what most new recruits go through to learn their MOS (military occupational specialty). PLDC is Primary Leadership Development Course, something everyone takes before they can be promoted to Non-commissioned officer.

I went through Basic, Jump School, Language School, AIT, and PLDC (in that order). Never saw nor heard of any hazing, and I would have reported it if I had.

> What, exactly, can hazing teach you
> about someone that you don't already
> know under those circumstances?

Patrick, you're not asking, you're answering.

> The various military training
> schools are far more than sufficient
> to determine everything you need to
> know about who's sharing your
> foxhole.

If they were, they would be. You can shoot up your nose cross your arms and stamp your foot and say "This is over!" if you want to....

I don't even understand what you're saying. It's apparent, you haven't been in the military and don't know much about it.

But you're the one who claims that hazing has a place. Therefore the onus probandi is on you. So, come share with us all you know about this ritualistic hazing that is so rampant in our military, which I, having spent four years in various schools miraculously was spared.

And by the way, individual accounts, however graphic, prove nothing about anything. You can paint a lurid picture, but in and of itself, it doesn't prove that this is commonplace. So, I'll require statistical data, thanks.

And I'll also need the peer-reviewed findings of a qualified expert in the field of psychology that supports your contention that hazing has a necessity.

Looking forward to it.

> I don't even understand what you're
> saying

But your so upset! Peer review!

No, Crid, I'm not the least bit upset. This scenario has played itself out for five years. You are the the second most egregious offender of petitio principii I have ever encountered on the 'net. (For the uninitiated, that means "begging the question.") You insist that certain things must be accepted as a given. In this case, that ritualistic hazing is commonplace in the military (not in my experience), and that this ritualistic hazing serves some useful purpose. Neither one of which you've proven, and as one who is very familiar with this craven tactic of yours, I know you have no intention of proving it.

You simply will launch into your Scarlett O'Hara impression with an airy "Fiddle-dee-dee." And with a hairflip that could outdo an entire runway of drag queens in sheer coquettishness, you're simply going to refuse to discuss it unless your dubious axioms are accepted.

So, we're at the usual impasse. This time, it's about some ubiquitous and necessary hazing that goes on in the military. While you have never been in the military, and I have, you presume to tell me what goes on in the various stages of training.

I do not accept your contention that this ritualistic hazing goes on in the military.

So, prove that it does.

I do not accept that hazing is somehow a necessary element in the military to test the resolve of those with whom you share a foxhole.

So, prove that it is.

No? Not going to Google the terms "military hazing statistics" or something similar and come back with Miss Ann Thrope's statistics on military hazing that will show that I must be the least observant interrogator ever to serve his four years to miss all this rampant hazing?

Not going to show us Dr. What's-its-witz's peer-reviewed analysis on the necessity of hazing in the military or similar environs?

I guess not.

We're just going to accuse Patrick of getting so upset and sobbing uncontrollably. This would be your usual M.O., a rhetorical fig leaf masking a tiny, shriveled pretense of a contention.

Business as usual. Been this way for five years, Crid. Here's to five more.

Still not buying, Crid. Put up or shut up.

The Quack quack quack reminds me of Gary Larson's The Far Side cartoon about what we say to dogs and what they hear. Scroll down on the link below to see it. Gotta love The Far Side!

http://hubpages.com/hub/Gary-Larson

> You insist that certain things
> must be accepted as a given. In
> this case, that ritualistic
> hazing is commonplace in the
> military

I never said that, but I perhaps could have... "Commonplace" anyway, though not desirable. I think men, especially young ones, who are preparing to enter physically risky circumstances will by nature do things to test each other that people on the outside won't like to see happen. It's dumb to think those things can be made to go away by saying... let me look this up...

> all those responsible
> need to be punished.

I think that was a small-minded thing to say. It betokens the same authoritarian, control-freaky outlook seen in your other comments.

> Still not buying

So don't read it, Patrick. It's a blog, not a term paper assignment.

Hmm, what does current research on the military, by a military officer have to say about this whole 'mos i the forces issue?

“After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,’’ writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/30/pentagon_airs_criticism_of_dont_ask/

Patrick -

You are mistaken. Crid knows all. How do we know this? Because Crid tells us so, and tells us so, and snivels at us when we dare to suggest otherwise.

He does not need to be in the military, have had a successful marriage or be raising children to demand we accept his insights as absolute. Brian, however, is mocked for commenting on health insurance, since he has none.

By the way, thank you for serving.

Patrick, I'm sorry, but boot camp, "A" school and Nuc School aren't enough to show me whether the guy on the coolant pump switch will fry me during testing by flipping it early. I can't confine you for two months underwater with a load of ICBMs to see what you'll do. I have to find out during the qualification process.

Since when does a whole unit go through the same training, and since when is training a replacement for battlefield experience?

How nice for you that "training", for example, taught those guys now in Iraq that the new guy can be trusted. I'm sure the classroom, even the desert in California, is just like Iraq.

I bet you thought Crid's comment on "hazing" meant the stupid frat-boy antics worldwide, and that might be what he means, but a similar process is going on right now everywhere, just without physical attack. I'm guessing that wherever you've been, nobody thought it was important to find out what you think with any informal confrontation. It's not child abuse, but in the Navy you'd better be cool when spoken to rudely because otherwise you'll show people you freak at nothing, and can't be counted on for tougher stuff, like when seawater gets in the people tank. And it doesn't care what you think; seawater drowns you for what you did or didn't do. No more, no less, no politically-correct answer.

When you buy a dog, the dog has to be shown how to behave at his new house. People are remarkably similar. Although hazing has gotten out of hand, it remains that pleasant talk won't tell me anything I need to know about you.

Raddy, I adore you, this isn't meant to be confrontational, but your third paragraph is unclear. You SEEM to be saying...

Well, I won't say, I can't be sure. Hit me baby one more time.

Or at least answer this question: Do you think hazing can stop just because the taxpayer wants it to? I have serious doubts. Women as sailors was supposed to be cool too, but every carrier deployment returns with a clutch of mothers-to-be waddling down the gangplank.

Regardless of whether hazing serves a useful purpose, how does keeping gays in the military closeted do so? Radwaste, you say you know with certainty you served with gay men. Did you worry about then dreaming about you? Or did you learn to trust those who earned it, and decide to disregard their preferences for dick instead of pussy? As you clearly admit, our laws don't prohibit gays from serving, just from doing so honestly. How is this an acceptable situation?

Now, I live in the semi-official queer capitol of the U.S., so my experiences may not be universal. But my gay friends don't seriously hit on me (yes, occasionally, they joke, but it's obvious) because they know I'm not interested. My straight friends don't hit on me either. I don't see why this would be any difference in the military.

Contrary to fantasies, gay guys don't seem to me to be constantly daydreaming about how to sodomize dudes who don't want them (and in this sense I've found them to be at least as honest as straight guys about who does and does not want them).

Women as sailors was supposed to be cool too, but every carrier deployment returns with a clutch of mothers-to-be waddling down the gangplank.

Depo Provera should be a condition of deployment. Or pregnancy punishable in some fashion. Soldiers should not be able to get out of their obligations due to entirely preventable and forseeable consequences of willful actions.

Radwaste: Patrick, I'm sorry, but boot camp, "A" school and Nuc School aren't enough to show me whether the guy on the coolant pump switch will fry me during testing by flipping it early. I can't confine you for two months underwater with a load of ICBMs to see what you'll do. I have to find out during the qualification process.

Ooooh, okay. And you think, somehow, that you're qualified to determine the reliability of the guy on the coolant pump switch, while the screening process, background check, 8 or more weeks of boot camp, the longer AIT training, etc. is not. Moreover, you can determine this reliability in the space of a few minutes, in a casual environment, merely by initiating some conflict with the guy in question.

You do think a lot of yourself, don't you, Radwaste?

Crid writes: It betokens the same authoritarian, control-freaky outlook seen in your other comments.

Oh, my!

> you think, somehow, that you're
> qualified to determine the
> reliability of the guy

Patrick, you think soldiers can be TOLD not to worry about this, but somehow I'm the authoritarian?

> Depo Provera should be a condition
> of deployment.

It would be neat not to have even a partial responsibility for all those babies, as the taxpayer presently does. But you'll have a very difficult time convincing people to let any kind of employment dictate fertility through chemistry. (PS: No one capable of making such a suggestion should ever pester others about being libertarian; you're so far off the charts, your judgment is untrustworthy.)

And the problem that the (oft ignored) prohibitions are meant to solve is the immediate sex itself, not merely the longer-term consequences: Sailors just aren't supposed to fuck each other.

Crid: Patrick, you think soldiers can be TOLD not to worry about this, but somehow I'm the authoritarian?

Where did I say that soldiers can be "told" not to worry about this? Good grief. Focus, Crid, focus.

I'm not telling anyone they can't do anything. But I am saying that hazing is not the solution to this dilemma you're seeing, from your life-long civilian perspective. Hazing carries consequences, even in the military. Sorry that bothers you so much, and I understand that you feel that hazing is the crucial litmus test to place your trust in someone, but unfortunately, in the military, it's not allowed.

I'm sure you feel that watching "Full Metal Jacket" three times makes you the expert, but Hollywood sometimes drops the ball, especially when talking about the military of decades ago, and suggesting it bears any resemblance to today's.

> Where did I say that soldiers can be
> "told" not to worry about this?

When you said

> all those responsible need to be
> punished.

and

> you [a solider] think, somehow,
> that you're qualified to
> determine the reliability of the
> guy on the coolant pump switch

Again: Whether you're happy about it or not, soldiers are going to form their own opinions about the competence of their fellows.

> I'm not telling anyone they can't
> do anything.

Good to know, Patrick!

"Do you think hazing can stop just because the taxpayer wants it to?"

No. And as I'm trying to get across, it takes non-violent forms to determine the reliability and commonality of your fellows at sea.

"Women as sailors was supposed to be cool too, but every carrier deployment returns with a clutch of mothers-to-be waddling down the gangplank."

Worse, outfits like Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity Jacksonville get loaded with a couple dozen single mothers whenever a carrier is going to be deployed, because pregnancy on the public dollar is more convenient than six to nine months overseas doing your job. I want to know: of what use is a pregnant sailor, or soldier?

"Radwaste, you say you know with certainty you served with gay men. Did you worry about then dreaming about you? Or did you learn to trust those who earned it, and decide to disregard their preferences for dick instead of pussy? As you clearly admit, our laws don't prohibit gays from serving, just from doing so honestly. How is this an acceptable situation?"

As I said in my first post on the subject - acceptability, to a submarine crew, means that you put the sub first. Just to clarify: you get sick, you come to work if you are not already there. There's a corpsman on the boat. Married, personal emergency? Sorry, again, your job on the sub comes first. Someone will tell you, not ask you, if you can be spared to help with family problems. Subs are special, in that they actually deploy ready to shoot, with the assumption that they will be shot at first in any hostilities. Do your job, so that the Skipper can save everybody's ass if he has to shoot - with the modern equivalent of a starship's armament.

" And you think, somehow, that you're qualified to determine the reliability of the guy on the coolant pump switch, while the screening process, background check, 8 or more weeks of boot camp, the longer AIT training, etc. is not. Moreover, you can determine this reliability in the space of a few minutes, in a casual environment, merely by initiating some conflict with the guy in question.

You do think a lot of yourself, don't you, Radwaste?"

You've just thrown away any notion of competency in discussing the subject. It's not me, genius, but every qualified sailor engaged in finding out whether the new guy is worth a damn - and it's not a matter of minutes, apparently the case in your world, but a continuous process which recognizes that sea duty is not school.

Someday, I hope you realize that. I've had to mention it twice now.

Crid writes:
> Where did I say that soldiers can be
> "told" not to worry about this?

When you said

> all those responsible need to be
> punished.

and

> you [a solider] think, somehow,
> that you're qualified to
> determine the reliability of the
> guy on the coolant pump switch

In other words, the only way to be assured in their own minds that the person operating the coolant switch is stable and safe to be trusted with this apparently critical function, is to allow them to indulge in ritualistic hazing to determine this for themselves?

And any enforcement of the existing UCMJ policies against hazing should be disregarded as archaic measures that serve only to prevent soldiers, sailors, airmen from determining the reliability and stability of those that serve with them?

May I remind you (AGAIN), you have not produced a single piece of evidence that the hazing you espouse for a service you have never served under is necessary and accomplishes what you think it will?

It would be neat not to have even a partial responsibility for all those babies, as the taxpayer presently does. But you'll have a very difficult time convincing people to let any kind of employment dictate fertility through chemistry. (PS: No one capable of making such a suggestion should ever pester others about being libertarian; you're so far off the charts, your judgment is untrustworthy.)

And the problem that the (oft ignored) prohibitions are meant to solve is the immediate sex itself, not merely the longer-term consequences: Sailors just aren't supposed to fuck each other.

Fine, perhaps no chemical contraception. Being a soldier isn't like having a regular job. You can be jailed for failing to follow your boss' orders. If your reckless violation of the rules ends up rendering you unfit for duty, the consequences shouldn't be a cushy reassignment. Discharge would be more appropriate.

> you have not produced a single
> piece of evidence that the hazing
> you espouse for a service you
> have never served under is
> necessary

There's no reason that I'd bother to produced such evidence, because it's not my contention.... I don't espouse hazing. The presumption that I do suggests a busy imagination. Neither have I contended that short people should be forced to do farm labor, or that the young mentally retarded should have their heart valves harvested for our senior cardiac cases. It makes as much sense to get upset with me for that.

But I recognize that hazing happens for some good reasons. And even when those reasons aren't good, they're an expression of human nature from young men (and others) who are being threatened with conditions of unremitting terror with strangers as partners. We don't get to deny the importance of their judgment just because it would be better to have meat-robots as servicemen.

You think hazing can be made to go away: We'll just "punish them all"! I think that's absurd, that it's more about your resentments about of a powerless childhood: 'I'm Daddy now, but I'm nicer, so I'm going to make unpleasant things stop because I said so.'

Gays shouldn't be brutally hazed... Nobody should be brutally hazed. But men who are going to be using and facing deadly force in a teamwork setting are going to form bonds as they fucking well need to, whether I like it or not. If we're going to minimize frictions, we're going to have to use better techniques than "punish them all" when we see unpleasant patterns.

Your authoritarian impulses, while gratifying to you in many ways, plug the dyke from the wrong side.

• • • • • • •

> You can be jailed for failing to
> follow your boss' orders.

So you think we should lock up young mothers? That's gonna be a tough sell as well.

> Discharge would be more
> appropriate.

For all I know, that's what happens. But it wouldn't be a surprise if it isn't.

> Discharge would be more
> appropriate.

For all I know, that's what happens. But it wouldn't be a surprise if it isn't.

When I was in, if you failed your 'preg' test, you were either given the option to be discharged or you were given light duty until after you shat out the kid. I believe that the discharge that they gave was 'general medical' rather than honorable or dishonorable.

-Julie

Crid, dear, I'm going to type this very slowly and use short words.

I don't suggest that all the perpetrators responsible should all be punished because I think I can make hazing go away. I say it because I think, after what they put this man through, they should be punished.

What is your beef with this? The only to object to this is because you seem to think that harassers should be allowed to harass without consequence?

You'd rather they just walked away, free to gloat over their offenses? Well, if that's the case, you got what you wanted. Apparently, you do think people should be brutally harassed if you're having a screaming hissy about the suggestion that they should be punished for what they did. What is the problem you have with the idea of punishing those responsible?

Delving into Freudian analysis might be a little more fruitful if you actually understood what was being said instead foisting an interpretation on it then pummeling a strawman. I cannot make harassment go away, but I can support the idea that we shouldn't reward or ignore those that do this sort of thing. Perhaps some who are less given to the dark side, at least, but more straddling the fence ethically speaking, just might have pause before deciding to do this sort of thing.

I'm sure Lynndie England and Charles Graner are used as examples in every interrogation school at Ft. Huachuca (where interrogation is taught), to discourage those who might feel that Geneva Conventions on the treatment of detainees are being taught only for sake of satisfying those morally uptight liberals who demand that we uphold those conventions.

Ah, no. The Geneva Conventions are taught at interrogation, because you really will be held responsible if you're found breaking them. Ask Graner and England.

Just a question, Crid, but is it possible for you to engage in a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without attacking them personally? Based on my five years of interaction with you, the answer is no.

Crid, grow up.

Don't whine, either.

Delving into Freudian analysis might be a little more fruitful if you actually understood what was being said instead foisting an interpretation on it then pummeling a strawman.

Patrick...I've been watching all of the Crid rants over the past few weeks since he got into it with me over the definition of rape. I have a hypothesis or two why he behaves the way he does, but in the end he takes the most objectionable viewpoint (rape is good, hazing is crucial to the functioning of the military, single mothers should be burned at the stake, etc) and defends it to the death through the use of straw-men, insults, and self-praise. Frequently when I attempted to confirm my understanding of his views (so that we would be debating the correct issue...and other personal reasons) I would get a rant in return with no response to my questions.

In the end Crid seems to enjoy arguing and will continue to do so by picking the most objectionable opinion and defending it to the death. It seems to be a form of entertainment to him. Occasionally his humanity leaks out, and on those occasions he appears to be a good natured guy. During all of the other times I suspect it is in our best interest to ignore him when he 'goes off the plantation'. Giving him attention is just a reward mechanism.

-Julie

> just a reward mechanism.

So don't read anymore, thanks.

Crid, grow up.

That has to be about the lamest justification I've ever heard for hazing, Crid. Were you ever actually in the service?

Crid is right. All sorts of manhood tests go on continuously, for exactly the reasons Crid states.

But you are free to discount my opinion, as it is tainted by 20 years of first hand experience.

Just a question, Crid, but is it possible for you to engage in a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without attacking them personally? Based on my five years of interaction with you, the answer is no.

Patrick is right.

> Patrick is right.

Yes, but only about that last part.

"In other words, the only way to be assured in their own minds that the person operating the coolant switch is stable and safe to be trusted with this apparently critical function, is to allow them to indulge in ritualistic hazing to determine this for themselves?"

The hemhorraging continues. You have now confused my posts with Crid's.

Stop while you're behind. Step away, then read back without interrupting me in your head with things you've made up.

Radwaste, go gargle with battery acid, please.

And while, contrary to what you claim, I did not conflate your posts with Crid's, it's easy to see how someone might confuse you. You both have the same tactic of insisting you're winning the debate. Do you actually think the posters here are too stupid to know who is making the best points without you telling them? One wonders who you're trying to convince.

To me, it's all too clear that you've lost the game and you're keenly aware of this fact when you start insisting that you're winning and that the other person should really just give it all up, because he's obviously too far behind.

Snicker, snicker...

Crid and I have been fighting our contentious battles for over five years, and anyone who has the temerity to get in between and presume to tell us what's what can just go fuck himself. Capice?

One night durring basic I was downstairs on phone and back door gaurd duty.

At about 2am the drill sergent on duty for the evening came downstaris and ordered me to call the XO and 11 other drill saergents attached to my company.

Our barracks was three stories tall and had two bays on each of the upper floors, one for each unit of the company.

Each unit was ordered to have night gaurds, 2 man shifts one hour long throught the evening.

The gaurds for the north bay of the third floor had fallen asleep.

Once the other drill sergents and the XO arrived they went into the unit bathroom grabbed the sleeping gaurds gaged them, trussed them up and placed them in the showers. They spent the next half an hour setting up trip line betwwen the bunks in the bay and lighty laying duct tape over the sleeping soilders and to tape them onto their bunks.

Once this was done they had me call the post fire department and then pull the alarm.

15 minuets later the last of that units soilders fell into formation in front of the barracks. By this time it was 330am, on a cold november morning on Fort Knox, Kentucky. We were all wearning nothing but our short sleeved PT shirts and shorts.

The company was bitched out for 5 minutes about how in a battlefeild situation everyone in company 4 would all be dead as their sentries had fallen asleep, at which point we were told to report to our bunks as the offending unit was marched a quarter mile in the pre dawn winter morning to the pit, a giant sand, wood chip and god knows what else box, at were worked out until morning chow.
Just over two hours for those not keeping track of time.

After the meal they were told to change into their winter workout clothes, and dump their filthy cothes in the shower as they wouldnt have time to wash them. Ironically it was that unit scheuled day for PT so they would be heading back to the pit in less then 10 minutes.

They dumped they dirt and sweat covered clothes in the shower, where they found their two missing sentries still bound and gagged, and went back out and spend another couple of hours working out. The sentries meanwhile were released and made to wash the rest of the units clothes.

The sentries who were the cause of the units punishment were spared the 5 hours of pissed of drill sergant inspired physical hell, and were rewarded by their fellow soilders with a couple of blanket parties.

No one ever fell asleep again, in any of the units.

So yes Patrick hazing does exist and it is quite effective in producing the desired results

Incidentally, crid and I disagree about plenty of things, he used to make it personal but rahter than focusing on that I focused on the isse being debated.

If you are stupid enough to get side tracked from the argument at hand you are to stupid to be part of the discussion.

Naw, it's just a bad habit. It's not a technique or anything.

Wow, Patrick.

I've just described real processes sailors use to find out what new arrivals on board are like and how they can be trusted, and you've thrown a tantrum after making this about me.

Irony: your Army buddies know you do this, and four years wasn't long enough for you to catch on.

"Tantrum".

"Crid is right. All sorts of manhood tests go on continuously, for exactly the reasons Crid states.
But you are free to discount my opinion, as it is tainted by 20 years of first hand experience."

What seems to be eluding everyone here is that hazing is counter-productive, whatever claims people are making for it, because it is outside the control of the command. Soldiers and sailors belong to the command and to no one else, and every aspect of their training is the prrview of the command alone, at whatever level that may be. Any commander that tolerates abuse of his troops is not a real commander, just a weak little piece of shit -that simple. Trying justify it by saying, "Well, it's something the chiefs (or the NCOs)" do is just another way of admitting he's not in control of his unit. And if that happens to be Navy tradition, that just confirms Churchill's comment on Navy tradition.

Radwaste, do you have a point to make somewhere, or is your entire strategy simply declaring yourself the winner?

Well Patrick, I suppose he could take a play out of your book by first ignoring the myriad of examples provided and use smarmy laungue to make yourself feel superior.

And Jim your a fucking moron. I gaureentee not one soilder in my training unit ever fell asleep when given any sort of nocturnal duty. Twenty bucks says they never have and never will.

And I'd pay good money to watch you call any drill sergent, NCO or officer a weak piece of shit to their face.

lujlp, I believe I had already stated that anecdotal evidence was unacceptable. It is a fallacy to assume that the lurid details of isolated incidents prove anything. I also stated that there would be statistical evidence required before I swallowed this idea that this hazing which miraculously I missed during my stint in the army was so rampant.

Telling colorful stories doesn't prove anything, even if you accept his testimony is gospel, other than an isolated incident of command that either didn't enforce the rules of the UCMJ or was simply so clueless that they didn't see it.

> Telling colorful stories doesn't
> prove anything

So personal experience in the military counts for nothing? Good to know.

I have an addition to make.

"So, come share with us all you know about this ritualistic hazing that is so rampant in our military, which I, having spent four years in various schools miraculously was spared."

Four years in school? I thought you had experience...

Patrick, boot camp is ritualistic hazing, done to determine who can and cannot cope with miltary service. Very few duties now involve marching in formation, five or six hundred push-ups a day or running everywhere you go, nor is it required that you fold underwear a certain way on pain of an hour of strenuous exercise if it is not.

Perhaps you've forgotten it. But if you actually deployed anywhere of importance, your unit will have tested you before trusting you, that's all. It's that simple.

And the winner is , ,

crid with the tradmark cutting wit that hamstrings the moron dumb enough to spin themselves so far around as to claim their own examples arent good enough