# Mom says daughter should get slain soldier's medal



## GAP (14 Aug 2009)

Mom says daughter should get slain soldier's medal
Updated Fri. Aug. 14 2009 6:53 AM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Annabelle Hamilton is four years old. 

Under the best circumstances, when she grows up she will have only grainy memories of her father, Cpl. Thomas Hamilton, who was killed by a roadside bomb in Kandahar last December. 

That Annabelle doesn't forget her dad -- and why he volunteered to fight in Afghanistan -- is vitally important to her mother, Heather Peace. 

That's why Peace is pushing for children to automatically receive the Memorial Crosses awarded to their slain fathers or mothers -- or at least some other honour. 

In this case, the tragedy of losing a parent is compounded by the fact the New Brunswick girl is a child of divorce and has been diagnosed with autism. 
More on link


----------



## helpup (14 Aug 2009)

It is automatic,,,,,,,,,,, if that child is put down as the recipient for it.  There is space for 5 (I think) it is up to a soldier to designate to whom.  I can see in the case of a large family running into problems. However there is range and scope in the system for flexiability.  Bottom line if a soldier does not identify properly or accurately it can, has and will lead to "headlines" about people being left out as the "army " does not care about those who lost someone.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Aug 2009)

I'm sorry, but how does autism play into this situation at all aside from trying to pull harder on our heartstrings?

Hindsight is 20/20.  It's unfortunate that he didn't designate his daughter as a Memorial Cross recipient.  In the military's (DHH) eyes "Annabelle Hamilton" is a name.  I can't remember if age or lien is designated on the sheet but that's all it is when they process, a name.  And if that name is not on the list, it's not getting a medal.  They don't try to be robotic nor do they do a full family history.  I imagine they take the form and pump out X number of medals to delivered.

Soon enough, if we keep changing the standards for the cross (which used to go to the mother's only) it will dpreciate from its value.  In the same vein as all the commendations that are handed out to people who simply do their jobs as they are supposed to and get nominated.  Kind of detracts from those people who get the same award for diving into a river to rescue a car crash victim. 

I am not trying to be insensitve, just realist.

I just re-read the article.  He designated gf's mom.  Might she be willing to give hers to the daughter?  Are the crosses individualized like the CD?  I don't know the family history but if mom "in law" wasn't super close might that not be a solution?


----------



## gcclarke (14 Aug 2009)

I could possibly see giving some lee-way if the date on the paperwork designating the recipients was prior to the birth of his daughter. In that case, it seems quite possible that this was merely an oversight on his part, and he would have liked to either leave one to the daughter, the daughter's mother, or both. 

How likely is this? Is a review of that particular form a regular part of pre-deployment administration?


----------



## mariomike (14 Aug 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> There is space for 5 (I think) it is up to a soldier to designate to whom.



"Each CF member will provide a list of up to three names"
http://www.dnd.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=2158


----------



## helpup (14 Aug 2009)

This is where it falls on the soldiers to ensure they keep the forms updated.  You can while deployed add and remove as required for recipients.  It also helps if you let your family know who was chosen and that invariably means you should let it be know why someone was not choosen.  By not doing it your setting the Army up for people pointing out how insensitive we are for not doing this. 

As was pointed out this medal was originaly for the mother of the deceased and that was it.  Only recently has it increased to ( I stand corrected, as I said I thought it was 5 ) 3 allowable members. To allow Wife, GF Child ect.  There is no age restriction for this nor does it have to be someone in your family.  The stink is comming from members not putting down people or giving it any thought ( hey we are all indistructable) And further by not informing the family about your choises.  This also happens when it comes to funeral arrangments.  Too many Spouses/ family's are saddled with not knowing or assuming they know what they wishes would be and getting bent out of shape if that does not match what the Army has on paper from the individual as to what thier wishes are.


----------



## FDO (14 Aug 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but anytime I've deployed I have had to complete my DAG form. It has made sure, amoung the other things, that my PERs file was up to date. As well as that, every year here I have had an RMS Clerk call me in to her office and go through my file to make sure my NOC is up to date and my MPRR is correct etc. Both of these have included my request for Memorial Cross. The form has 3 spots. My wife, mother and daughter are on mine. Tragic as this case is, we all need to take ownership of our own files and if there is a change we need to make sure it gets made.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Aug 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> How likely is this? Is a review of that particular form a regular part of pre-deployment administration?



Yes, it's part of the annual review and part of the pre-deployment review.

He had multiple occasions to choose to give an MC to his daughter.  He chose not to.


----------



## CountDC (14 Aug 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but how does autism play into this situation at all aside from trying to pull harder on our heartstrings?



Exactly and as a father of an autistic daughter it po's me when they do that.

Another case where the military looks bad for the choice of a member.


----------



## mariomike (14 Aug 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> As was pointed out this medal was originaly for the mother of the deceased and that was it.



My grandmother had one. I've seen a lot of medals, but to me, that little cross on a mother had a very profound effect. I used to see them a lot in church. It was not uncommon to go into the homes of older women and see one draped over an 8 x 11 framed studio photo of a young man in uniform. You always knew what it meant. About ten years ago, surviving Silver Cross mothers were becoming very rare.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Aug 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Soon enough, if we keep changing the standards for the cross (which used to go to the mother's only)...



No, there used to be one or two (or no) Memorial Crosses issued.

One went to the mother of the soldier, if she was still alive.
A second sent to the soldier's wife, if he was married.

So, the original crosses could see one, two, or no crosses issued to family.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Aug 2009)

I stand corrected.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Aug 2009)

Well, she wrote to Defense Minister Peter MacKay and his reply was that the military had to honour Hamilton's wishes.  But she's not giving up.

Apparently, he had all three recipients filled out.  Two went to his parents and one to the mother of the woman he was dating.

Ottawa Citizen Article Link

Weird that the print version of the article in Saturday's paper is different than the on-line version.   ???


----------



## Larkvall (16 Aug 2009)

Why doesn't she just ask his parents to leave the medal to her daughter in one of their wills?


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Aug 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Why doesn't she just ask his parents to leave the medal to her daughter in one of their wills?



The quote under the girl's picture in the article states:


> *Her mother wants Ottawa to create a special medal for the children of fallen soldiers.*



Also, there's the possibility she's not on speaking terms with his parents.


----------



## mariomike (16 Aug 2009)

"Her mother wants Ottawa to create a special medal for the children of fallen soldiers."

That sounds like a very kind hearted idea. 
I recall reading that Audie Murphy gave away his medals to the children of the men he fought with who did not make it home.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Aug 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Her mother wants Ottawa to create a special medal for the children of fallen soldiers."
> 
> That sounds like a very kind hearted idea.
> I recall reading that Audie Murphy gave away his medals to the children of the men he fought with who did not make it home.



We've already expanded the original concept of the Memorial Cross to three crosses to be presented to any three people the soldier identifies (no longer just wive and mother).  Kind-hearted idea or not, where do you draw the line after creating a "special medal for the children"?  Should parents get a different medal than wives and girlfriends?  How about siblings?  Sadly, it's a slippery slope and there will always be someone just on the other side of the line as they perceive it.


----------



## CountDC (17 Aug 2009)

why don't we just save the hassle and give everyone in Canada a medal.  

Oops - probably won't work because someone will come out with - his 15th cousin in italy, France, Germany etc should get one too.

Might as well face it - no matter what gets done the military just can't win - we always look back.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (18 Aug 2009)

I'm good friends with my mailman...maybe he can have one as well?

That's what I was alluding to in my post.  The "value" of the medal will be diminished everytime "someone else" gets one.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Aug 2009)

Wait for the next emotional hurdle, when some Legion branch is looking for a "Silver Cross Mother" for a Remembrance Day service, and they can find none ... but someone's brother stands up holding the Memorial Cross he received when his sibling died overseas and asks "what about me, aren't I eligible to do that duty now?"


----------



## Another Mom (18 Aug 2009)

Are there that many soldiers dying or that many people clammering for medals that it is necessary to use an impersonal and inflexible system to decide who gets them? Do they cost a lot to manufacture? To distribute?  If a family member is grieving (yes, even a sibling) and they value their loved one's service enough to request a medal that it means something to them, then doesn't that pall in comparison to what it cost the forces to mail them one?  Isn't that better than someone not wanting any reminder at all of the forces?  I think the final insult would be a reminder that a medal will not be forthcoming because the paperwork was not filled out. Perhaps a compromise would be a letter or phone call describing that  the parent and spouse (or people on the "list") automatically get a medal, and if other family members would like one they should talk or write to the chaplain describing their special circumstances and it would be considered. Couldn't the chaplain, the CEO and one other person decide? It would go a long way to  having the last memory of the forces be a positive one.  

Is is really better to have no family member at a Remembrance Day service, than a brother (who otherwise could be home cleaning the garage)?  I think we are losing sight that  these family members are supporting their loved one in their endeavor, even though it came to death.  Enough people are against the Forces and want to have nothing to do with it, that I think it would be good to support those family members that do want to support  the Forces.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Aug 2009)

The service member decides.  Full stop.  In this case, the deceased chose not to list his daughter.  His forms were up-to-date.  Full stop.

These are not complex issues.  For whatever reason, he chose not to award a memorial cross to his daughter in the event of his death.  So, the better question is this:  Do we dishonour the wishes of the deceased?


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (18 Aug 2009)

Another Mom
The system is not impersonable and inflexible.  The soldier that is going overseas decides who he wants to receive the 3 Memorial Crosses.  It's that simple.  

Maybe we should think about what the soldier wants.  Just to play devil's advocate.  What if a soldiers mother was just a REALLY rotten and he did not under any circumstances have anything to do with her.  Should she then be able to phone up the padre/CO and because she gave birth to him, then be eligible for that medal that he wants to go to his wife?  It is his/her choice.  They are the one risking their lives.  Although I think that if the medals are not going to immediate family, the soldier needs to explain his choices to his family. That way no one will be wondering if the unthinkable happens.  Whether it is in a letter in his pers file or they are told personally.


I should clarify...I think it would save alot of heartache IF the soldiers explained his choices.


----------



## McG (18 Aug 2009)

I don't like the idea of a new medal.  However ...



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> "Each CF member will provide a list of up to three names"


I know members with more than three children.  It would be nice if there were some flexibility that, if the member chose his/her children (and only the children), then additional medals could be made avaialbe even for child # 4 & 5 & whatever else (as we all know there are even ridiculously larger families out there as they have a tendancy to steal air-time from worth wile television content).


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 Aug 2009)

Another Mom said:
			
		

> Is is really better to have no family member at a Remembrance Day service, than a brother (who otherwise could be home cleaning the garage)?  I think we are losing sight that  these family members are supporting their loved one in their endeavor, even though it came to death.  Enough people are against the Forces and want to have nothing to do with it, that I think it would be good to support those family members that do want to support  the Forces.



Perhaps I should have been more clear: the emotional hurdle will be the one the Legion and the media (as well as the emotive peanut gallery) will have to go through to understand that a brother who received a Memorial Cross, because his fallen sibling specified he should, is just as deserving to represent the fallen on behalf of the families as the traditional Silver Cross Mother has been for the past 90+ years.


Note to self: explain everything in detail, if something can be misinterpreted it will be misinterpreted..


----------



## gunshy (19 Aug 2009)

I am not a member of the Forces but have read the posts with surprise. If the day ever came that I personally was named to be given a medal from a friend and/or spouse that give his life protecting his Country  and doing what he loved... I would be absolutely devastated beyond words but yet completely honoured :yellow: that he thought enough of me to carry and keep his honour.



> Hindsight is 20/20.  It's unfortunate that he didn't designate his daughter as a Memorial Cross recipient.


  

(So true, but now, maybe this is a huge wake up call for all soldiers to seriously think when they are filling out their paperwork. I mean this respectfully and hope my statement does not offend anyone. In the same token, if a soldier submits 3 names it should be understood and respected that his wishes are carried out with no exceptions. Again, I mean this with the utmost respect, soldiers know there are 3 spaces to fill, they need to choose/ consider them according to their individual situation. As for the ones left behind it is unfortunate  :'( if a family member etc. is not stated in a soldiers paperwork but has to be repected.)



> Soon enough, if we keep changing the standards for the cross (which used to go to the mother's only) it will dpreciate from its value.  In the same vein as all the commendations that are handed out to people who simply do their jobs as they are supposed to and get nominated.  Kind of detracts from those people who get the same award for diving into a river to rescue a car crash victim.



(I cannot agree... I don't believe that any medal that has been named and given from a fallen soldier would ever loose it's value! As it cost the soldier the ultimate price  :'(. Possibly misunderstanding your statement?)



> I am not trying to be insensitve, just realist.



(Realistically a soldier has 3 spaces to fill... if they have 10 prospects unfortunately they have to shortlist 7! This may not seem fair but a line has to be drawn somewhere and that is the reality. Good Luck to all of you in your choices)
 May God Bless you all, keep you safe and always return you home to your loved ones! :yellow:


----------



## kratz (20 Aug 2009)

This "news" story is still alive. Heather Peace is on live on Canada AM this morning being interviewed. She is laying the blame with the CF. None of her statements during the interview is new from the two newspaper articles posted earlier. 

Canada AM has posted a link to her online petition . Based on the phrasing of the petition, Peace does not know know how medals are created, or how changes to medals are made. So far her petition has only 134 signatures.


----------



## mariomike (20 Aug 2009)

kratz said:
			
		

> This "news" story is still alive. Heather Peace is on live on Canada AM this morning being interviewed. She is laying the blame with the CF.



I agree with Mr. O'Leary's P.O.V. on the subject. What I suspect we are seeing from Mrs. Peace is not so much about the medal, and more about her wanting attention. Unfortunately, she is doing it in a very public way at the expense of her daughter and the memory of her late father. The CF tried to do what they believed was the right thing when they changed a policy that had been the tradition since World War One.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Aug 2009)

kratz said:
			
		

> Canada AM has posted a link to her online petition . Based on the phrasing of the petition, Peace does not know know how medals are created, or how changes to medals are made. So far her petition has only 134 signatures.



140 signatures now, of the "usual" ilk:



> Lynette Churchill - All *children of fallen soliders should be recognized and be on the top of the list for receiving this medal* in memory of the parent which they have lost. You begin to wonder why this little girl was left out and the ex-girlfriends mother received it. I don't know the relationship here but *in my mind his daughter should of been put ahead of this lady*.



Lynette, there is no "order of priority" for this.  The soldier fills out the paperwork and it is _their_ choice who will or will not receive it.



> cindy higgins - children should get a silver cross also they are very inportant to carry on thier fathersl name



Umm, Cindy?  His child is a girl.  Yes, she _could_ carry on her father's name but it's not likely.



> Melanie Hudon - think it is a disgrace that this little girl hasn't gotten *what is rightfully hers*.



Really Melanie?  Just where does it state this is a right?



> Amanda Naugle - i agree all children of fallen service people should get a *metal* to remind *then their* parent was a hero



I think that all children should be proficient in proper spelling and sentence structure.  Maybe I should start a petition......


----------



## Long in the tooth (20 Aug 2009)

Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.  It gets DND off the hook (again), placing responsibility on the individual soldier.  The Padre should be the buffer here, and GD it, if the girl would feel better having the cross then so be it.  The 'mailman' does not get one, BTW.
I had my Wife and Mother down as recipients.  Now that my Mother has passed on I feel only my wife (not any of my three daughters) should get it.  But that's a personal call.

More and more DND is writing orders to CYA.


----------



## Roy Harding (20 Aug 2009)

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.  It gets DND off the hook (again), placing responsibility on the individual soldier.  The Padre should be the buffer here, and GD it, if the girl would feel better having the cross then so be it.  The 'mailman' does not get one, BTW.
> I had my Wife and Mother down as recipients.  Now that my Mother has passed on I feel only my wife (not any of my three daughters) should get it.  But that's a personal call.
> 
> More and more DND is writing orders to CYA.



I was kind of agreeing with you at first.  Then you contradicted yourself.  The last sentence of your first paragraph says it all - "But that's a personal call".

Exactly it's a personal call - which is what the CF is allowing its' soldiers to make.


----------



## CountDC (20 Aug 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I was kind of agreeing with you at first.  Then you contradicted yourself.  The last sentence of your first paragraph says it all - "But that's a personal call".
> 
> Exactly it's a personal call - which is what the CF is allowing its' soldiers to make.



beat me to it - talk about a contradicting post.  

It is a personal call and should be. I do not believe it is a case of the CF doing a CYA, I believe they were giving the troops what was wanted.  In my case, the cross goes to the girls because that is what I decided. The boys can fight it out over any medals I have and my jewelry.  Only problem will be if I have another daughter I will have to decide which of the girls get left out.  Most likely D9 will say to take her off the list so in the end I guess it won't be me deciding.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Aug 2009)

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.  It gets DND off the hook (again), placing responsibility on the individual soldier.



100% disagree.  I think the responsibility is right where it should be, with the serving member.  Same as my SDB beneficiary, my SISIP OGTI and my Will, I've clearly listed who should get a MC if I take one for the team somewhere along the line.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Aug 2009)

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.  It gets DND off the hook (again), *placing responsibility on the individual soldier*.



Which is where it should be.  I don't want need someone else deciding who gets a MC in the event of _my_ death and I'll be damned (probably will be anyway   ) if I require someone to counsel me on that decision.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Aug 2009)

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> Having a soldier direct who should receive a Memorial Cross before deployment is a CF cop out and denial of responsibility.
> 
> More and more DND is writing orders to CYA.



I laughed at that.  DND used to have a directive policy.  But, of course, people didn't like that, so they changed it.

Just more proof that there is no policy, regulation or decision that won't bring someone out of the woodwork to say it's wrong.

So please, tell us your plan that will satisfy everyone.


----------



## Another Mom (20 Aug 2009)

Is it possible for the soldier to stipulate only 1 or 2 people? Or 4 or more? Trying to decide 3, no more, no less, might work for some, but for others, it might be so tough to decide that that a young soldier might put down any old name to get it over with.   Could the directive be "only birth dad", or "all children" etc. That way the soldier decides but does not have to make a really hard choice (of 3).  Or does not have to have the "conversation", if he does not want to.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Aug 2009)

And then where do you draw the "common sense" line, so no-one writes in "everyone in my graduating class", or "all 17 of my nieces and nephews"?

Why does one unhappy person justify requiring the restructure of the whole idea, again?


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Aug 2009)

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe there was a reason he did not name his daughter as a recipient?


----------



## Franko (20 Aug 2009)

Maybe it should go back to the way it was...the soldier's mom only. Then there is no way for anyone to complain that they were left out.

The funny thing is the CF changed the policy to appease families and soldiers alike and, for the most part, it has worked. I've talked to a few troops prior to deployment when the paperwork was being filled out and the question was asked "Who do I put down?" I answered "Who matters the most to you in the world?" they then started to write.

The soldier made the decision, possibly without thinking it through, but a decision all the same. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't understand how he could forget about his daughter and put down his girlfriend's mother instead. Perhaps he had his reasons.

He's gone and his wishes, no matter how much they hurt, have to be respected...do they not?

Regards


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2009)

Another Mom said:
			
		

> Is it possible for the soldier to stipulate only 1 or 2 people? Or 4 or more? Trying to decide 3, no more, no less, might work for some, but for others, it might be so tough to decide that that a young soldier might put down any old name to get it over with.   Could the directive be "only birth dad", or "all children" etc. That way the soldier decides but does not have to make a really hard choice (of 3).  Or does not have to have the "conversation", if he does not want to.



Soldiers can designate "up to 3" recipients. One, Two, or Three (maximum). Or NONE.

And yes, this has occured. When I asked for his reasoning behind the line through his form with the statement "I designated ZERO recipients to receive the Memorial Cross in the event of my death" (with his signature underneath and his signature again in the signature block of the form ... I'd have been hard pressed not to do the exact same thing had I experienced his life.

Just remember, not all families are the Cleavers, and some kids just can't wait to get the heck away from "home" - he was one of them. I inquired if he had any close friends etc that he would like to see presented this - he did not. He has since married and completed a new form - it lists his wife and the area for the 2nd and 3rd receiptients are struck out in the very same manner as they were on his original form.

Soldiers are adults. This is their decision and choice to make. They have their reasons for designating as they do - all I can do (and all the CF can do) is respect the fact that they were adult enough to die for their Country, then they were also adult enough to make their own choice regarding who would or who would not receive a Memorial Cross.


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2009)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Maybe it should go back to the way it was...the soldier's mom only. Then there is no way for anyone to complain that they were left out.



The Cross was awarded to both the mothers (if alive) AND the wives (if married & alive) the old way.

Then, we experienced the loss of Nichola Goddard who was married, but whose husband did not qualify while male soldiers spouses did qualify.  Perhaps we should have stuck to the old way, but only changed second possible Cross recipient from the "wife (if married & alive)" to read "Spouse (if married & alive)".


----------



## Roy Harding (21 Aug 2009)

The unnecessary slagging on this thread has been split off to here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/88630.0.html

Keep this thread ON TOPIC, without hurling insults at each other.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## gunshy (21 Aug 2009)

Thank you Roy! 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but how disappointing to read such disrespect of a soldier who gave his life.  I must be naive, but always thought right, wrong or indifferent you respect your brother/ sister's wishes and always have their back. Hell I respect this soldiers wishes!... I may not agree with them... but they were his wishes. I am also very surprised at the many comments suggesting it's just a medal, just give his daughter one etc! I'm not a part of the CF and this may be the case. 
... but I'm thinking not! Just my  :2c:
BRAVO to those of you who have respected your fallen brother's wishes regardless of your own! :yellow:


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Aug 2009)

gunshy said:
			
		

> Thank you Roy!
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but how disappointing to read such disrespect of a soldier who gave his life. (ruckmarch) I must be naive, but always thought right, wrong or indifferent you respect your brother/ sister's wishes and always have their back. Hell I respect this soldiers wishes!... I may not agree with them... but they were his wishes. I am also very surprised at the many comments suggesting it's just a medal, just give his daughter one etc! I'm not a part of the CF and this may be the case.
> ... but I'm thinking not! Just my  :2c:
> BRAVO to those of you who have respected your fallen brother's wishes regardless of your own! :yellow:




You do know, that this is a site made of soldiers, where we have laid our lives on the line as well.

Does our opinion not count, considering your praise for us??

Some of the people here, myself included, have been pried from the grasp of the Grim Reapper, and are able to talk about how we feel.

Maybe you should think about that, before casting us down, as that is an insult to all of us, the fallen included.

A wee little food for thought.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (21 Aug 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> You do know, that this is a site made of soldiers, where we have laid our lives on the line as well.
> 
> Does our opinion not count, considering your praise for us??
> 
> ...



Uhmmm Tess,

Gunshy wasn't calling it "just another medal" --- that was a reference that came from an earlier post ... since moved to chatter.

Just an observation.

Vern


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Aug 2009)

Ouch,  :-X


I completely missed your Highlights, Gunshy.

Vern, thanks for that one babe.


Oi, Gunshy, saddle up here beside me, and we can talk, I will sweet talk you and apologize as well....


(Psst, thanks Vern, I owe you one, and will make it up when I come up to Borden next time  :-*)

dileas


tess


----------



## gunshy (21 Aug 2009)

Thanks Vern, you are absolutely correct  :nod: cheers!

AND thanks 48th Regulator I'm flattered but my name is that for a reason   

as for the statement of opinions, it is what it is... but that's all it is and it will not change this fallen soldiers wishes, the same as if those wishes had of been yours... with all due respect.   

Gunshy


----------

