# Navy pers wearing black t-shirts in CADPAT



## painswessex (2 Mar 2007)

I know this is a NAVY canforgen although my kind of rant is about a friend of mine who is posted to edmonton and put on his t-shirt when the canforgen came out then at a morning parade was pulled out and jacked up for wearing it. He replied i was only doing what the national directive said. The SGT replied well your a master seaman and should know better not to wear the shirt until we say so. Im sorry if a CANFORGEN states that "In the interem as an optional messure, navy DEU personnel who so wish, are authorised to acquire and wear at no cost to the crown a crew neck t-shirt without logos, jet black in colour,75 per cent cotton (plus minus 5 per cent)/25 per cent polyester(plus minus 5 per cent)" 

So unless 1 SVC BN is all of a sudden more operational then 2 SVC BN then the SGT is wrong for jacking up my buddy. And i thought Petawawa was the hard a** posting. I have had no trouble wearing my shirt. As soon as i get a hold of the name tapes and slip ons i am wearing them. 

GO NAVY!!!!!!


----------



## armyvern (2 Mar 2007)

painswessex said:
			
		

> I know this is a NAVY canforgen although my kind of rant is about a friend of mine who is posted to edmonton and put on his t-shirt when the canforgen came out then at a morning parade was pulled out and jacked up for wearing it. He replied i was only doing what the national directive said. The SGT replied well your a master seaman and should know better not to wear the shirt until we say so. Im sorry if a CANFORGEN states that "In the interem as an optional messure, navy DEU personnel who so wish, are authorised to acquire and wear at no cost to the crown a crew neck t-shirt without logos, jet black in colour,75 per cent cotton (plus minus 5 per cent)/25 per cent polyester(plus minus 5 per cent)"
> 
> So unless 1 SVC BN is all of a sudden more operational then 2 SVC BN then the SGT is wrong for jacking up my buddy. And i thought Petawawa was the hard a** posting. I have had no trouble wearing my shirt. As soon as i get a hold of the name tapes and slip ons i am wearing them.
> 
> GO NAVY!!!!!!



http://vcds.dwan.dnd.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2007/027-07_e.asp

Para 2 of the message:



> DISTINCT NAVY IDENTIFIERS ARE APPROVED FOR WEAR WITH CADPAT/LWCC IN CANADA DEPENDENT ON THE OPERATIONAL CONTEXT OF THE UNIT - IE. IN NON-TACTICAL SITUATIONS *AS DEEMED BY THE OPERATIONAL COMMANDER.* AUTHORIZATION ON OVERSEAS OPERATIONS WILL BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE THEATRE COMMANDER BASED ON THE OPERATIONAL SITUATION



In short, as per the AF blue t-shirts, the decision on whether or not they are approved to wear rests with the operational enviornment of the Unit in which the member is serving, and shall be worn if _that unit_ approves it as dress. This is what happens when people don't ensure they read the entire contents of message. 

Whether or not a Unit chooses to approve, is up to them, as directed by the Canforgen. As for your buddy getting jacked up, had he read the above para of the message, he should have realized that he should have asked his CoC whether or not the dress had been approved for wear by them before making his own command decision to show up in it. That decision by your buddy _is not_ the Sgts problem or mistake.

Edits: typos...etc


----------



## painswessex (2 Mar 2007)

Hello i read the whole message and i know what it says. IF the CO of the unit does not wish his personnel to wear the items then he should say so. No offical corispondance from the CO was passed down through the chain. I wont say what i am really thinking about the army right now.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2007)

I'm curious, did he ask his chain of command if they were aware of the message?  Or if the CO was going to make a decision on it?  Or did he just show up dressed like that knowing that some of his superiors might react strongly if standards of dress had been a current concern within the unit and they were not aware of any changes authorized _within the unit_?


----------



## Teflon (2 Mar 2007)

> I wont say what i am really thinking about the army right now



 :crybaby:


----------



## armyvern (2 Mar 2007)

painswessex said:
			
		

> Hello i read the whole message and i know what it says. IF the CO of the unit does not wish his personnel to wear the items then he should say so. No offical corispondance from the CO was passed down through the chain. I wont say what i am really thinking about the army right now.



As a sup tech you know full well that clothing is worn as authorized. 

Since when when does a corporal decide what his Unit dress will be?? For that is exactly what your friend did.
His CO obviously DID NOT authorize it for wear, thus your buddy was NOT authorized to wear it.

I highly suggest that you read the CANFORGEN again (they are messages from the CDS by the way, not the Navy as your original post indicates). What does para 2 say?? Read it... 

It does NOT say "you can wear it if you want until told differently in writing by the CO of your Unit." It quite clearly says that you can wear it IF your Unit CO approves it. The official correspondance IS the CANFORGEN, it IS what is applicable. IF the CO didn't approve it for wear, it WAS NOT authorized for wear.

He doesn't need to "NOT AUTHORIZE" it for wear. Read carefully...he needs to "APPROVE IT" for wear.


----------



## painswessex (2 Mar 2007)

Yes you are right labrarian, to a point. So you are saying that when the cadpat came out to issue to the troops that no one was allowed to wear it until the units said so? And i also know that CANFORGENS are national i was just meaning it was a NAVY type topic thats all if you look at the canforgen date and title you will notice the issuing authority was CMS. You said that i should read the canforgen again, Para 2, like you refered to, staes that *aproved navy identifiers for all navy DEU personnel who are REQUIRED to wear CADPAT/LWCC are as follows: etc etc....* i believe you wanted to direct me to para 3.




He did the same as i did read the message put on the black shirt and carried a copy of the CANFORGEN arround if anyone questioned it. IMO i think they were just upset that people acctually read the CANFORGENS 

I belive that the CANFORGEN can be interpeted in different ways, I read it as if the unit is in a tactical situation then it is green everything. 

This is getting out of hand i was just posting a rant like so many others do and got shot all to hell just like always....RE some of my posts in the CSOR CANSOFCOM forum.


----------



## Teflon (2 Mar 2007)

> IMO i think they were just upset that people actually read the CANFORGENS



If they didn't want people to read them then they wouldn't produce them and if they only wanted the higher chain of command to read them then they would be sent only to them



> I believe that the CANFORGEN can be interpeted in different ways



Yup, the wrong way or the way the CoC does



> This is getting out of hand i was just posting a rant like so many others do and got shot all to hell just like always



Just pointing some things out to you, but since you are talking about something getting out of hand here, this is all about the colour of a t-shirt right? Not comfort or usefullness or functionality? Just colour?  :


----------



## painswessex (2 Mar 2007)

to me Its all about being proud to wear the Navy uniform, and anything i can wear to make it knowen that i am a proud sailor then i will. Its bad enough i have to wear CADPAT instead of my NCD's


----------



## Sub_Guy (2 Mar 2007)

I would like to think that the COC is up to date on all the CANFORGENS, so when this message came there should have been some direction from up top directing the Navy fellas what to do, to prevent such sillyness as a good jack up!

It sucks getting jacked up, but I probably would have inquired through my COC as to what is going on before putting on the black T.


But then again I do like catching people off guard!  Two thumbs up for that!  You can bet a decision will be made rather quickly!


----------



## 284_226 (2 Mar 2007)

painswessex said:
			
		

> Yes you are right labrarian, to a point. So you are saying that when the cadpat came out to issue to the troops that no one was allowed to wear it until the units said so? And i also know that CANFORGENS are national i was just meaning it was a NAVY type topic thats all if you look at the canforgen date and title you will notice the issuing authority was CMS. You said that i should read the canforgen again, Para 2, like you refered to, staes that *aproved navy identifiers for all navy DEU personnel who are REQUIRED to wear CADPAT/LWCC are as follows: etc etc....* i believe you wanted to direct me to para 3.
> 
> He did the same as i did read the message put on the black shirt and carried a copy of the CANFORGEN arround if anyone questioned it. IMO i think they were just upset that people acctually read the CANFORGENS
> 
> I belive that the CANFORGEN can be interpeted in different ways, I read it as if the unit is in a tactical situation then it is green everything.



FWIW, painswessex, I agree with the way you interpreted it.  The CANFORGEN issued authorization, and it was left up to the operational commanders of the units to provide restrictive conditions.


----------



## painswessex (2 Mar 2007)

thanks 284_286, I wore the shirt on my own without direction from up top cause i am tired of being called corpral and correcting people to the fact that i have a very tiny anchor on my name tape that says i am Navy. The black shirt, slip ons, and name tape is a VERY welcome addition to the uniform. Comfort, usefullness, and functionallity....You Bet ya! Comfort...i dont have to wear a scratchy green shirt they bought from the lowest bidder....usefullness....I now dont have to corect people to call me Leading Seaman instead of corpral....functionality.... who cares its black and i love it.....

GO NAVY!!!!


----------



## Teflon (2 Mar 2007)

If they didn't notice the anchor on your name tag, why would they notice your black t-shirt?


is it really an identity crisis thing or just the colour of your t-shirt that has you all whiny?


----------



## painswessex (2 Mar 2007)

Have you seen the guys wearing a black shirt yet? If you have then you would see that it is very noticable. 
Kind of like when we wear our DEU's and make the whole parade look that much better. 


hows that for whiny....


----------



## Teflon (2 Mar 2007)

> hows that for whiny....



You are definately setting the standard quite high for whiny, for sure to earn you a top third spot on the whiny course!

It's t-shirt colour - GET OVER IT and find something else to get all worked up about


----------



## painswessex (2 Mar 2007)

it has nothing to do with the colour of the shirt...i was saying that i thought it was stupid to be jacked up for wearing a peice of clothing that a canforgen tells you that you can.


----------



## Teflon (2 Mar 2007)

If authorized by your CoC, if it was then the person who did the jacking was mistaken and the CoC will correct him/her, if it isn't authorized by your CoC well then jacking deserved, jacking delivered

It is about the colour of a t-shirt, (green t-shirt - black t-shirt) the only different thing between those two sides is colour

This conversation continuing is pretty pointless so feel free to have the last word here painswessex but if you wish/require a reply from me then PM me as I've tired of wasting bandwidth on this


----------



## MikeM (2 Mar 2007)

You work in an army environment, big deal if someone calls you corporal. The same can be said for people who call BDRs CPLs, etc.. big deal over nothing.


----------



## ZipperHead (2 Mar 2007)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is ARMY.CA. 

Do you think you are going to get an easy ride here with your "GO NAVY!!! the army is stupid!!!!" rant?!?! You seem to hate the army, but frequent a site devoted to the army. And the post wasn't even in the "Navy" sub-forum. The navy doth protest too much, methinks.... 

Al


----------



## CdnArtyWife (2 Mar 2007)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is ARMY.CA.
> 
> Do you think you are going to get an easy ride here with your "GO NAVY!!! the army is stupid!!!!" rant?!?! You seem to hate the army, but frequent a site devoted to the army. And the post wasn't even in the "Navy" sub-forum. The navy doth protest too much, methinks....
> 
> Al



Al,

You forgot to add GO ARMOURED!!!! at the end.  ;D *snicker snicker*

Cheers,

CAW


----------



## Journeyman (2 Mar 2007)

Let me try.

The CANFORGEN states that Navy identifiers are _approved_ for wear with CACPAT, dependent on the Commander's _authorization_.

Approved ≠ Authorized. 
Words, particularly in official correspondence, are important. They have specific meanings for a reason, and those meanings are understood by those for whom the correspondence is intended. 

In this case, the message tells the Commander that he is _authorized_ (if he so chooses), to allow his Naval people to wear the Navy identifiers (those _approved_ by the CMS). That authorization is given to the appropriate level of the chain of command, who will decide based upon the local situation. That level is not Cpl LS Bloggins; it is the Commander; (that's why the CANFORGEN specifically spells out "as deemed by the Operational Commander")

While initiative is laudable, it is generally more applicable to "seeking out and accepting responsibility," rather than fashion issues. This responsibility may also apply to accepting that the jacking was warranted because LS Bloggins decided (wrongly) to show initiative. It happens, the fault is corrected, the world still turns.


Now, turning to the issue of you personally feeling picked on in this, and other, threads. 
May I suggest you first have a quick read of Michael O'Leary's excellent post on Approaches to avoiding unwanted labels. No really; go have a look, I'll wait.

Now you see, there may be a couple of reasons why you feel this way:
a) perhaps you're phrasing your postings in a manner that draws negative responses, despite your best intentions. This may be because there is a perception of whining, or entitlement, or speaking outside your lane, or whatever - - it's the readers' perceptions that are affecting their responses to you. Proofread, and tidy up your posts, to ensure you're not giving people the wrong impression.

Conversely,
b) there may _be_ a conspiracy and everyone is out to get you.  


------------------------------
I hesitate to mention c) because it's possible that you may be paranoid AND everyone is actually out to get you, in which case you're totally screwed.   ;D


----------



## Northern Ranger (2 Mar 2007)

painswessex said:
			
		

> Have you seen the guys wearing a black shirt yet? If you have then you would see that it is very noticable.
> Kind of like when we wear our DEU's and make the whole parade look that much better.



  LOL, sharpest guys on the square are always the fish heads. 

I also think you had it right to often pers like to cop out and say you should have known better.  The CoC had the right to change the dress bassed on the Operational focus of the unit.  Ignorance has never been an excuse to get out of trouble and its not one to use to jack someone up.

This coming from a guy that wears red shirts with his CadPat (only north of 60 of crse)


----------



## reccecrewman (2 Mar 2007)

Here's one for you..........  a few years ago when the cadpat was being issued as new kit,  I know of several tank crewman that got their new gucci bush hats and they were told to place them in their ruck for pers kit inspections and that was their sole function - pers kit inspections.  When they went to the field (The authorized place for wear of the bush cap) they were not to put them on their heads.... they were back in their rucksacks.  What was on their heads? A black beret w/ a Springbok capbadge.  Just as the canforgen states, it's up to Unit CO's to decide, and in some cases, Sub-Unit Commanders.  Some people are jist looking to get jacked up I suppose..........


----------



## 284_226 (2 Mar 2007)

MikeM said:
			
		

> You work in an army environment, big deal if someone calls you corporal. The same can be said for people who call BDRs CPLs, etc.. big deal over nothing.



I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever at CFSCE in Kingston, and I have a brain dump and call the BCWO "Chief".  Can I quote you?   ;D


----------



## 284_226 (2 Mar 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> In this case, the message tells the Commander that he is _authorized_ (if he so chooses), to allow his Naval people to wear the Navy identifiers (those _approved_ by the CMS). That authorization is given to the appropriate level of the chain of command, who will decide based upon the local situation. That level is not Cpl LS Bloggins; it is the Commander; (that's why the CANFORGEN specifically spells out "as deemed by the Operational Commander")



The CANFORGEN doesn't specifically spell out "as deemed by the Operational Commander".  It spells out that "the approval is dependent on the operational context of the unit", and THEN goes on to cite an example (hence the "ie." that follows that statement) of how an operational commander might restrict the wear of the t-shirt to only situations deemed non-tactical by the operational commander.

Semantics, yes.  Same as the semantics between "authorized" and "approved".  Not really worth tearing a strip off someone without checking to see if some new orders came down the tubes, especially if it's just a morning parade.  The CANFORGEN wasn't well worded, plain and simple.


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Mar 2007)

Teflon said:
			
		

> It's t-shirt colour - GET OVER IT and find something else to get all worked up about



For historical reasons most naval personnel really hate to dress in green.  It brings back memories of a time when the Minister was fooling around with something more important than UFOs.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2007)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> For historical reasons most naval personnel really hate to dress in green.  It brings back memories of a time when the Minister was fooling around with something more important than UFOs.



I wonder, how old did you have to be at the time of Unification to still be so deeply affected by its uniform issues?  Does it also affect those who hadn't yet been conceived on 1 February 1968?

Or, to use the same comparison, perhaps there's nothing more important for some of these people to worry about now.


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> The CANFORGEN doesn't specifically spell out "as deemed by the Operational Commander".  It spells out that "the approval is dependent on the operational context of the unit", and THEN goes on to cite an example (hence the "ie." that follows that statement)



Not disagreeing with the issue itself, but i.e. means "that is", not "for example".  (That would be e.g.)


----------



## mudrecceman (2 Mar 2007)

MikeM said:
			
		

> You work in an army environment, big deal if someone calls you corporal. The same can be said for people who call BDRs CPLs, etc.. big deal over nothing.



Remember that if someone calls you Leading Seamen if you are teaching a BMQ course then...right?


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Mar 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I wonder, how old did you have to be at the time of Unification to still be so deeply affected by its uniform issues?  Does it also affect those who hadn't yet been conceived on 1 February 1968?



It sure does.  Institutional memory runs deep.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2007)

Curious, and strangely explanatory of that lingering Royal Navy attitude I used to see around the Wardroom. So, were the effects of 30 March 1972 greater, or less, of an impact?  How about the emasculation of 12 December 1969?  Is it time for a serious psycho-analysis of the Navy's childhood?    >


----------



## 284_226 (2 Mar 2007)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Not disagreeing with the issue itself, but i.e. means "that is", not "for example".  (That would be e.g.)



You're absolutely correct, and I've officially learned something today.  It would also lend credence to my belief that the intent of the CANFORGEN was to permit the wearing of the t-shirt in non-tactical situations, with the operational commander having the latitude to decide precisely what is and what isn't a tactical situation.  One would be hard pressed to find a morning parade as a tactical situation - unless you're trying to march a bunch of sailors around a parade square in step, that is  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Mar 2007)

I think we have  :deadhorse:


----------



## Journeyman (2 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> The CANFORGEN doesn't specifically spell out "as deemed by the Operational Commander".  It spells out that "the approval is dependent on the operational context of the unit", and THEN goes on to cite an example (hence the "ie." that follows that statement) of how an operational commander might restrict the wear of the t-shirt to only situations deemed non-tactical by the operational commander.
> 
> Semantics, yes.  Same as the semantics between "authorized" and "approved".  Not really worth tearing a strip off someone without checking to see if some new orders came down the tubes, especially if it's just a morning parade.  The CANFORGEN wasn't well worded, plain and simple.


As pointed out already, i.e. (_id est_; "that is [to say]...") is not the same as e.g. (_exempli gratia_; "offered example") - - in the same manner already explained that "approved" and "authorized" have different meanings.

I guess that's all irrelevant however, since you dismiss it all as mere semantics anyway. Which pretty much proves the point that it really doesn't matter if you or anyone else on this thread agree with painswessex, it is the Commander's call; not yours, not mine, not painwessex's. To the Commander, and the appropriate chain of command, it's not mere semantics - - words are important. Grievances and other legal issues may be tied to such mere words. I assure you, the drafter of that CANFORGEN wasn't likely just having a hoot with her thesaurus (if she had, she would have realized that "approved" and "authorized" are not synonyms anyway).


Now - - as for getting jacked up...well, I feel your pain; I was jacked up myself once. No, really, it's true. So I can see why the pouting in the corner of the schoolyard continues.




I got over it; it's OK.


----------



## 284_226 (3 Mar 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> As pointed out already, i.e. (_id est_; "that is [to say]...") is not the same as e.g. (_exempli gratia_; "offered example") - - in the same manner already explained that "approved" and "authorized" have different meanings.



As pointed out already, I got it.  I took Latin for four years, and if it taught me one thing, it's not to use Latin when dealing with people who speak English unless they've been taught Latin.  I must've skipped the day they taught id est and exempli gratia...



> I guess that's all irrelevant however, since you dismiss it all as mere semantics anyway. Which pretty much proves the point that it really doesn't matter if you or anyone else on this thread agree with painswessex, it is the Commander's call; not yours, not mine, not painwessex's. To the Commander, and the appropriate chain of command, it's not mere semantics - - words are important. Grievances and other legal issues may be tied to such mere words. I assure you, the drafter of that CANFORGEN wasn't likely just having a hoot with her thesaurus (if she had, she would have realized that "approved" and "authorized" are not synonyms anyway).



They aren't?  The scriptures of the CF are littered with examples of where the words are interchanged haphazardly.  You don't need to look very far to find an example - check out paragraph 4 of the same CANFORGEN - it reads "Navy identifiers are only *authorized* for wear with the temperate woodland (TW) CADPAT/LWCC and shall not be worn with other CADPAT designs (i.e. arid)"

Do you not think that the more appropriate word there would have been *approved*, vice authorized?  The originator of the CANFORGEN is dithering to and fro with their authority, given your strict definitions - "I approve this, I don't authorize that..."

I would respectfully suggest that you do some research with regard to "approve" and "authorize" - you'll find the definitions share a great deal of commonality - and that some dictionaries do treat them as synonyms, especially where the law is concerned, and we know how picky those lawyers can be.



> Now - - as for getting jacked up...well, I feel your pain; I was jacked up myself once. No, really, it's true. So I can see why the pouting in the corner of the schoolyard continues.
> 
> I got over it; it's OK.



You yourself said:



> Words, particularly in official correspondence, are important. They have specific meanings for a reason, and *those meanings are understood by those for whom the correspondence is intended.*



It's interesting that you'd say that, given that CANFORGEN = Canadian Forces General message.  That means it's for everyone to understand, otherwise it'd be called a CANFORSGTSANDABOVEGEN.  
They really need to write to the lowest common denominator when issuing directives such as this, so that one doesn't need a degree in English to determine the difference between "approved" and "authorized", if such a difference is critical to the meaning of the message.  It's like the job I'm in with desktop support - I've learned to save myself a whole lot of headaches by assuming that the user that I'm helping doesn't even have a clue how to turn the computer on.  If they know more than that, they'll be quick enough to correct me.

What I find amazing is that a simple issue such as the wearing of a t-shirt could generate so much controversy.  The dress regs (as modified by CANFORGENS) should be bulletproof before they're released to the masses.  It's not like the concept of uniforms, or the introduction of new uniforms is something we've never done before.


----------



## Roy Harding (3 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> What I find amazing is that a simple issue such as the wearing of a t-shirt could generate so much controversy.
> 
> ...



Actually - in re-reading the thread, I don't believe it was the "wearing of a t-shirt" that caused such angst - it appears to be the "jacking up" of the wearer that has caused hurt feelings.

And yes - I can read Latin too (labouriously, but I can).

Roy


----------



## eerickso (3 Mar 2007)

Here is a solution that solves these types of uniform problems:

If you are in a purple trade, you should wear the uniform of the unit. It is funny to see army types who have 10 years sea time still thinking that they have some connection to the army. If you are so attached to your uniform, stay in army units or vice versa. If the career manager says you have to go, have a long bath after your posting is over!

The CF bands have figured this out, how come the rest of the military can't?


----------



## Hot Lips (3 Mar 2007)

Wow, I am glad I took the time to read that :
I haven't been around for awhile...it's nice to see (insert sarcasm here) we haven't given up the dogpiles on people that are trying to express their concerns and or feelings about an issue.
Not sure I would jack someone up for having a t-shirt on that I in theory could be wearing...instead I might give some guidance as to what the circumstances are surrounding the wearing of same at my/our unit.

Didn't the Armoured core wear the black t-shirts not that long ago?

HL


----------



## armyvern (3 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> They aren't?  The scriptures of the CF are littered with examples of where the words are interchanged haphazardly.  You don't need to look very far to find an example - check out paragraph 4 of the same CANFORGEN - it reads "Navy identifiers are only *authorized* for wear with the temperate woodland (TW) CADPAT/LWCC and shall not be worn with other CADPAT designs (i.e. arid)"
> 
> Do you not think that the more appropriate word there would have been *approved*, vice authorized?  The originator of the CANFORGEN is dithering to and fro with their authority, given your strict definitions - "I approve this, I don't authorize that..."



No. The message quite properly reads within it's whole context that:

The CMS has _authorized_ the wear of the naval identifiers by naval pers only with TW cadpat and is _not authorizing _ their wear with any other uniform. But that, despite them being _authorized_ for wear by naval pers while in a TW uniform; they must still be _approved_ for wear by naval pers serving in other enviornments by the particular CO of that unit, and at that COs discretion.



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> I would respectfully suggest that you do some research with regard to "approve" and "authorize" - you'll find the definitions share a great deal of commonality - and that some dictionaries do treat them as synonyms, especially where the law is concerned, and we know how picky those lawyers can be.


Actually, a hilarious suggestion!! Probably best ignored, but good for a laugh!!


----------



## 284_226 (3 Mar 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> No. The message quite properly reads within it's whole context that:
> 
> The CMS has _authorized_ the wear of the naval identifiers by naval pers only with TW cadpat and is _not authorizing _ their wear with any other uniform. But that, despite them being _authorized_ for wear by naval pers while in a TW uniform; they must still be _approved_ for wear by naval pers serving in other enviornments by the particular CO of that unit, and at that COs discretion.



You may want to read it again.  In the message, the CMS is communicating approval and authorization in different paragraphs.  Which is he? An approval authority, or the grantor of authorization?  He does both actions in the CANFORGEN.



> Actually, a hilarious suggestion!! Probably best ignored, but good for a laugh!!



I'll take that to mean you didn't do it.  Geez, make me do all the work...

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=approve

Entry Word: approve
Function: verb
Text: to give official acceptance of something as satisfactory <as soon as the pond project was approved, the bulldozers were at the site>
*Synonyms* authorize, clear, OK (or okay), ratify, sanction, warrant


----------



## Neill McKay (3 Mar 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Here is a solution that solves these types of uniform problems:
> 
> If you are in a purple trade, you should wear the uniform of the unit. It is funny to see army types who have 10 years sea time still thinking that they have some connection to the army. If you are so attached to your uniform, stay in army units or vice versa. If the career manager says you have to go, have a long bath after your posting is over!
> 
> The CF bands have figured this out, how come the rest of the military can't?



I would imagine that a lot of it has to do with what we identify with.  Lots of people want to "join the army" or "join the navy", but who gets all starry-eyed at "joining the Canadian Forces"?


----------



## eerickso (3 Mar 2007)

I totally agree, it's just a case of choosing the lesser evil. Is it better to give the navy guy an army uniform for a couple of years or have him demand his black t shirt while singing heart of oak everyday at work?While this might be good for his individual ego, how is unit cohesion maintained? If the unit does any army stuff, they are simple going to look at his beret and try to find someone else. I am guilty of this sometimes. 

However, if in fact his heart is make of oak, he will return to the navy within a few years anyways.


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Mar 2007)

We have army fellas that work at NRS (AGA) and they wear CADPAT. No big deal right?  How would they feel if they were told they had to wear NCD's while working on a Navy base? Or that they have to wear the black T-shirt, just so they can look like everyone else, or so they don't stand out.  

Most Navy fellas working on ARMY bases are purple trades anyway, let them wear the black t-shirt.  You don't make them wear a green beret, so why have the hard on for the black t-shirt.  

Seems like a big waste of time for a simple t-shirt!


----------



## mudrecceman (3 Mar 2007)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Didn't the Armoured core wear the black t-shirts not that long ago?
> 
> HL



Yep, we did at my unit which was Armoured Corps (in the days before CADPAT).  Regimental or Armoured Corps t's were approved for wear in garrison or the field until...the CoC "unapproved" them.

 ;D


----------



## armyvern (3 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> You may want to read it again.  In the message, the CMS is communicating approval and authorization in different paragraphs.  Which is he? An approval authority, or the grantor of authorization?  He does both actions in the CANFORGEN.


No, I really don't need to. He CAN do both, but he has left the approval for it's wear at the discretion of the COs for other operational Units. It's really quite simple. And it's his choice to do so.



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> I'll take that to mean you didn't do it.  Geez, make me do all the work..


You didn't tell me to research anything. You told someone else to; and, considering _his_ background...your suggestion is absolutely hilarious. That's all. Just way too funny a suggestion considering who you were suggesting it to.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Mar 2007)

Maybe for those personnel serving in joint positions they should wear a purple T shirt.


----------



## armyvern (3 Mar 2007)

;D


----------



## 284_226 (4 Mar 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> No, I really don't need to. He CAN do both, but he has left the approval for it's wear at the discretion of the COs for other operational Units. It's really quite simple. And it's his choice to do so.



Bottom line - the CANFORGEN is unclear.  It may be clear to you, but it needs to be clear to everyone.



> You didn't tell me to research anything. You told someone else to; and, considering _his_ background...your suggestion is absolutely hilarious. That's all. Just way too funny a suggestion considering who you were suggesting it to.



Oh, I'm sorry.  I had forgotten that I was supposed to immediately defer to any Infantry Captains who disagree with me, as only they can have a command of the English language.   :

If my suggestion was so hilarious, why did you snip the part where I posted proof that one of the leading dictionaries lists "authorize" as a synonym of "approve"?


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm sorry.  I had forgotten that I was supposed to immediately defer to any Infantry Captains who disagree with me, as only they can have a command of the English language.   :



Well I'm glad that point has finally been made clear.

Now, would someone on the staff who hasn't been involved please lock this thread up before it completely augers in.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Mar 2007)

This pissing contest is over....thanks

army.ca staff


----------

