# MILITARY ATTRACTS VIOLENT LOUTS



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Mar 2005)

I was struck speechless by this today (well, almost).  The article is from CP and reflects additional results of the survey quoted elsewhere on the Forums.  What purpose is served by such inane, pointless and expensive surveys? 

*Military attracts violent louts - study*

_By CP

OTTAWA -- Young Canadians interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends, says an internal army study obtained by The Canadian Press. Some findings in the 80-page report suggest army recruiters should carefully screen the 5,000 additional soldiers they plan to hire over the next five years. 

People interested in a career with the Canadian Forces tend to be "lacking in life goals and feel alienated from society and its values," says the document, co-authored by three senior officers. 

"They are attracted to violence more than the average member of Canadian society and accept violence as a legitimate means of getting what they want." 

Generally, those interested in joining the Forces also tend to be "somewhat timid in the face of change and preferred traditional categories of identity by race, gender, and nationality," says the survey. "As a result, they may resist affirmative action initiatives." 

The observations are contained in a draft copy of the study, Canada's Soldiers: Military Ethos and Canadian Values in the 21st Century Army. The attitudes of people interested in joining the military were extracted from pollster CROP Inc.'s annual survey of Canadians. The research was also based on 60 questions to 1,297 regular soldiers and 440 reservists. 

There are about 19,500 active soldiers and 15,000 army reservists in Canada. The Canadian Forces survey's 26% response rate - about 7,300 were distributed - was considered low but acceptable. The army, expected to take on a greater role in international peacemaking and disaster relief, is likely to get the bulk of the new recruits under new government policy. 

While the report suggests attitudes "mellow" with age, it paints a picture of potential recruits who are spoiled, petulant and who "defer to external codes and rules" but look after their own self-interest: 

- Those exploring a military career are not so much interested in serving as in "being someone and belonging to something." 

- They tend to pursue happiness before duty, give personal life priority over work, and in ethical dilemmas tend to favour personal interests. 

- They want to own status symbols and look good, and need to "break out of their isolation and share the collective emotions of a group." 

Col. Mike Capstick, a co-author of the report, says not all those who expressed an interest in the military would have signed on, nor would all who signed on have been accepted, survived training or unit integration. "We know that some of them are released because they're just not suitable for military service," said Capstick. 

Some characteristics of potential recruits are similar to those of serving soldiers. 

"Survey results suggest that soldiers tend to be traditionalists in regard to gender and minorities," it says._

And another:

_*Que. soldiers have different views on role*

By STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - Quebec-based soldiers have "a completely different view" of appropriate army roles compared with troops in the rest of the country, placing domestic disaster relief and search-rescue above combat, says an army survey. 

"To (Quebec) personnel, non-combat operations in Canada are the most appropriate roles," says the draft report, obtained by The Canadian Press. In a poll of Canadian Forces members conducted last year, Quebec-based soldiers rated disaster relief and search-rescue in Canada as first and second priorities. 

Soldiers in the other three army areas - West, Ontario and Atlantic - rated combat operations to defend Canadian territory and combat operations to defend Canadian citizens at home and abroad as first and second. 

Quebec-based soldiers rated combat operations fourth and fifth, even lower than aid to the civil power in Canada - a role that includes enforcement of the former War Measures Act, now the Emergencies Act, that was so resented by Quebec during the October Crisis of 1970. 

The report does not specify which units were questioned in Quebec or elsewhere. About a quarter of Canada's 19,500 full-time soldiers are based in Quebec, home to the Royal 22nd Regiment, or Vandoos. 

The 80-page report, Canada's Soldiers: Military Ethos and Canadian Values in the 21st Century Army, is based on questionnaires completed by about 1,700 soldiers. 

The survey found that Quebec-based soldiers are more concerned with ecology and social responsibility than their counterparts in other areas, and are more intolerant of foreigners. 

"This might lead to a preference for 'in Canada' disaster relief operations rather than foreign war-fighting operations," says the report, written by three senior officers. 

"(Quebec-based) personnel express more concern for troop safety in combat operations than personnel of other (areas). However, (Quebec-based) personnel express more willingness to place troops in danger on non-combat ops compared to personnel of other areas." 

Soldiers were asked to assess appropriateness of army roles such as combat operations to defend Canadian territory, peace support operations, disaster relief operations in Canada and promoting Canadian societal values. 

"Personnel feel that all specified roles except one, 'promoting Canadian societal values,' are appropriate army roles," says the report. 

Overall, "soldiers show a clear preference for war-fighting roles and specifically war-fighting in defence of Canada and Canadians. 

"Combat operations to defend an ally and humanitarian operations throughout the world were rated less highly but still received support." 

Soldiers were neutral to positive on gender integration, except in the West where "soldiers' acceptance is most guarded." 

"Land Forces Western Area, alone among the (army areas), reject women in combat," it says. "(Western area) alone among the (areas), also refused to certify that gender integration is 'going well'." 

The survey says soldiers based in the West are "not fundamentally misogynous." 

It suggests that women in the West may be less able to fit in than their counterparts in other areas, possibly because of more macho units or more challenging jobs. 

The report says diversity is generally well accepted in the army "with the exception of gay and lesbian members who are not acceptable as workmates to a large segment of the male sample." 

"Women, on the other hand, are as accepting of gay and lesbian members as they are of members of ethnic backgrounds, though not as accepting as they are of other religions or persons of different skin colour." 

"(Western) personnel are the least favourably disposed to gay and lesbian workmates." 

The report's co-author, Col. Mike Capstick, says the army survey results are "very reflective" of Canadian society as a whole, based on general polls. 

"We found it remarkable that there was a great deal of consistency," he said. 

Quebec is unique in the military because its soldiers for the most part were born and raised in Quebec, with the exception of some francophone Ontarians and New Brunswickers. 

But Capstick said attitudes elsewhere were also consistent with the general populace in those areas, even though many of the soldiers based there may be from other parts of the country. 

"Support for all of the roles and missions is strong," he said. "It's a matter of degree as opposed to support or non-support. 

"It's an interesting dynamic but not a red-flag kind of dynamic. It's something you have to watch." _ 

You can find the entire survey on the net somewhere (or at least the DIN) - it makes for "interesting" reading, particularly in its rush to develop conclusions.

Restraining the urge to launch on a tirade :rage:, a Western "lout",

TR


----------



## S McKee (10 Mar 2005)

Only choirboys need apply :


----------



## Torlyn (10 Mar 2005)

My favourite was "They are attracted to violence more than the average member of Canadian society and accept violence as a legitimate means of getting what they want." 

Really?  And all along I thought that the ARMED forces just sent out CDN flags and hugged a lot of people.  Isn't that how wars end?

T


----------



## jswift872 (10 Mar 2005)

apparently so Torlyn..those kind of studies just make me roll my eyes.


----------



## mdh (10 Mar 2005)

I wonder if this is an example of a reporter taking liberties - especially the headline writer. I would like to see the report in its entirety to see how the article fits into an overall context. It may have been obtained through access to information.   (I would imagine the officers quoted won't be happy.)   

cheers, mdh


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2005)

I was always under the impression that one of the advantages of  Armed Forces was that they could take "violent louts" and discipline them and/or teach them self-discipline so that they could put those violent tendencies to the benefit of their Nation.  

It seems to me that having soldiers that "accept violence as legitimate" is no bad thing.  I could have sworn that was why they were being paid.

The creation of a perfect soldier - which route is easiest?  Take a pacifist individualist and teach them to kill and obey authority? Or take a violent, joiner and teach them discipline?

History suggests the latter as far as I can tell.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2005)

I'd like to see a copy of the questionnaire. Was anyone here involved with this or saw it? It would be interesting to see the phraseology used. As most everyone knows, many pollsters pose their questions a certain way in order to achieve the preconceived results they want. I really don't care much what the results of this one are, I'm more concerned about the agenda it's going to push. It's setting the stage for a real Us vs Them type scenario. Anglo vs Franco, male vs female, East vs West and combat vs secondary roles, etc. What's the agenda? Anyone?


----------



## Poppa (10 Mar 2005)

Sorry, I was out pushing little school kids into snowbanks and stomping on puppies.
What are we talking about?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Mar 2005)

recceguy:

I actually saw the results a while ago (I was deployed at the time), so know it's on the DIN and isn't classified.  It may well be on the Net, too.

I can't remember much in the way of specifics regarding questions, etc., though.  I do remember sending Gunner a quote that basically stated LFWA soldiers were more individualistic and resistant to authority than others in the Army, but will have to wait to get back to work to find the details.  Perhaps someone else (not on leave) can have a look for it.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Pieman (10 Mar 2005)

> I'd like to see a copy of the questionnaire


So would I. I can already see a great deal of potential for faulty results. 

The questionnaire was given to CF members, and then compared to what? Did they give the same questionnaire to 'normal' canadians? What demographic? What age group? Did the study really manage to create a survey that made a comparably fair and objective analysis? I am highly suspicious that it failed to do that.

Drawing the conclusion that people who serve in the military feel that violence can be used as means of solving *some* problems it a foregone conclusion. Who did they make this comparison to? Little old ladies in supermarkets?

As for the CF attracting members who are unmotivated, I seriously doubt that there are more unmotivated people than the average population. In fact, looking at how lazy some of the average people are that I see, I can only conclude that people who take the effort to get off their butt and join up, are already more motivated than the general population. On top of that, looking at the qualification of some of the applicants who frequent this board, many seem to have quite a bit going for them already, and are simply looking for something better.

Anyway, if anyone can find a link to the actual study, please post.


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (10 Mar 2005)

Having violent tendencies is fine as long as you can control them; I personally want to hit everyone that gives me a funny face. dousn't mean I will; but if my nation asked me to kill for it's survival I'm sure those tendencies would be very usefull and in fact sought after by these psuedo intellectuals who conducted this survey.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Mar 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'd like to see a copy of the questionnaire. Was anyone here involved with this or saw it? It would be interesting to see the phraseology used. As most everyone knows, many pollsters pose their questions a certain way in order to achieve the preconceived results they want. I really don't care much what the results of this one are, I'm more concerned about the agenda it's going to push. It's setting the stage for a real Us vs Them type scenario. Anglo vs Franco, male vs female, East vs West and combat vs secondary roles, etc. What's the agenda? Anyone?



That was exactly my first reaction.Not to mention this was based on a 26% return rate or something like that.It also did not specify the age or time in the military of the people that responded, or trades.Stupid stupid waste of money and time.

All you can really conclude from this is that members of the CF tend to be more violent than the average person.Really? Who would have thought people involved in an armed military would be the least bit violent? And here I was all this time thinking the CF was just a branch of green peace.Thank god for these helpful surveyers, im so much more informed now.


----------



## PeterLT (10 Mar 2005)

Hmmmm......I thought that the military folks were _supposed_ to be more inclined towards violence so that the normal, politically correct citizens could be free to cultivate their cabbages and tend to their butterfly collections; sipping tea and eating biscuits without having to worry about the more "primitive" pursuits. Guess I was wrong....pity. ???

Peter


----------



## S McKee (10 Mar 2005)

I can't fathom the reasoning as to why this study was conducted, (maybe Lloyd Axworthy and his softpower friends are behind it). I also have to question the timing these articles were released (just after the federal budget was approved) It's as if the leftwing media's saying "We know you kitten killing bastards are getting all this new money for army toys..just letting you know we're watching." Am I being too paranoid?


----------



## The Bat (10 Mar 2005)

With soldiers like these, who needs enemies?; 
Young <Canadians> interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends? i get that way all the time? how about you?

The <army>, expected to take on a greater role in peacemaking and disaster relief, is likely to get the bulk of the new recruits under new government policy. is this a pat on the back?

They tend to pursue happiness before duty, give personal life priority over work, and in ethical dilemmas tend to favour personal interests. OK you got me i take happiness over duty and i bet the people who work at IBM think the same way!!!!!

While the report suggests attitudes "mellow" with age!!! Really hmm let me see i am old but my attitude has not mellowed yet so at what age really??

"They also tend to consider national superiority to be important and to see themselves as superior to foreigners," says the report. "These attitudes and values may, at times, result in conflict with <Canadian> values as expressed in the <Canadian> Charter of Rights and Freedoms."   But we are my god what are they thinking we would have it no other way.

I would really like to now the troops that took part in the survey and we should give that same survey to the people that came up with the survey and see how they fare in the survey, but i guess we will always have people out there that will slam the CF in anyway they can. so i tell them to keep up the good work and then they can go clean the snow in GTA or fight the floods in Winnipeg and all other stuff the CF has and still is doing!!!!!


----------



## x-grunt (10 Mar 2005)

Draft of the report online. I haven't read through it yet.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lfwa_hq/Conferences/Army_Culture_Survey.pdf

I will be interested in seeing if this is a media slant. The wording used in the article suggests that it is. The report itself may be much more sensible.


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2005)

This raises as many questions as it answers.

The first article seems to look at CF applicants and CF members across all arms (air, land, and sea).   However, the second article sounds as though it was focused only on Army units.   Is there any difference in trends between the three arms?   Is there a difference between MOCs?

How do â Å“young Canadians interested in joining the militaryâ ? compare to young Canadians with no interest in joining the military?   How do those applicants compare to new privates fresh out of battle school? (That would be an excellent barometer of how well we inculcate the military culture & ethos into our newest members)

Under what conditions did respondents find it acceptable to use violence to achieve ends?   (and who's ends?)


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Mar 2005)

A quick scan of the draft X-grunt has posted suggests, as usual, that the articles are more indicative of media slant - and the desire to create headlines and sell news.

The Report itself seems much more balanced, just pointing out differences, not determining who is "better".

Need to see where this goes from here.


----------



## x-grunt (10 Mar 2005)

Agreed, Kirkhill. A very quick scan indicates the media article is quite slanted. I guess there is no surprise there, eh?

Actually, I'm interested in reading the report more closely, some interesting info in there.

Anyone know how to contact CP? I think this article deserves a response.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Mar 2005)

x-grunt:

That's where I'd seen it!  Thanks for posting the link...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Mar 2005)

Well, I just read through all 69 pages.  I encourage all to at least read the conclusions and recommendations.

I found the report, on the whole, to be unsurprising - ie it confirmed what I intuitively believed to be the case.  I was surprised by the degree of differences between the rank levels, by the number of pers who placed troop safety ahead of the mission, and the extremity of views held by Cpls and by LCols.

All in all, an excellent report.  it is good to see some empirical analysis being conducted on something as important as Army Culture - especially given the importance of "Shaping Army Culture" as a line of operation, and more recently the overarching principle of "Soldiers First".

As to the media reports - it is a case of man bites dog...

Dave


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Mar 2005)

I just re-read the conclusions and still question the requirement for such a survey.  We've been inundated with surveys over the past few years and this one seemed to fulfill little purpose (IMHO), other than to reinforce impressions that serving members are likely to have gained over their time in.

The sample sizes are far too small to reach any real conclusions.  For example, a difference in opinions between rank levels cannot be accurately reflected in a survey that was only completed by 2 Cols and 15 LCols.  

My problem with the survey is that it reaches dramatic conclusions about various aspects of the Army and makes statements against those conclusions based on very little evidence.  Witness this:

_With CROP survey findings that SQFT personnel are insular and somewhat
closed to outsiders, a transformational leader will be challenged to create the inspiring vision
required to motivate them for combat service outside of Canada._

Yike!  There's more (the comments about LFWA pers are "interesting"), but I couldn't managed to wade through the pseudo-intellectual babble that accompanies much of the report.

Again, I'm likely reflecting my "anti-survey" bias and am rounds expended on this one.  

Cheers,


TR


----------



## Infanteer (10 Mar 2005)

I think Teddy Ruxpin has struck a chord here with the "anti-survey" bias.

I remember getting a long and drawn out set of surveys (that we were forced to sit in and do) about QOL issues and deployment.   Perhaps we soldiers paid attention to the first one, but no one really tried to answer the next few and, when the final one was mailed to me, I simply threw it in the garbage.   Some of the inane questions on the survey aggravated alot of the rank-and-file troops.

Quite frankly, they wanted to see real leadership and progress and not another stupid survey on what problems we have - most soldiers will tell you what the problems are as they are staring right at us.

So, is this survey a solid piece of statistics?   Some have already commented on the sample selection.   As well, I've got to wonder how many troops filling this out played "have fun screwing with the survey" that my fellow soldiers seemed to delight in with the barrage of QOL questions we got....


----------



## GO!!! (10 Mar 2005)

Lets keep in mind who administers these surveys and how. I've filled out a few now, on a Friday at 1615, with the WO "encouraging" everyone to finish w/ max aggression so we can go home. 

Anyone else remember the 51pg, 400Ques survey that was issued post Apollo - most guys I knew A-C-D-C the whole thing - because leave started as soon as you handed it in!

In addition, the shrinks love to ask questions to which there is no neutral answer - ie - 

Do you feel angry at the world...
a -some of the time
b - most of the time
c - only when I'm sober
d - I have no feelings - only rages

Take it w/ a grain of salt.

BTW

Did anyone read the rpt in the Edmonton Journal that Soldiers in Quebec listed Peacekeeping and aide to civil power as the primary roles of the CF? A section pg 13 from the Canadian press.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Mar 2005)

I, for one, never felt alienated from Canadian society until after I was in the army.

CHIMO, Kat


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Mar 2005)

After years of initiatives intended to make the CF more closely resemble the culture of dependence and self-gratification from which it is drawn, it begins in some respects to resemble the culture of dependence and self-gratification from which it is drawn.  Film at 11.


----------



## TCBF (10 Mar 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My favourite was "They are attracted to violence more than the average member of Canadian society and accept violence as a legitimate means of getting what they want." "

Sounds like the Army is a good place for them/us.   Might as well harness all that military potential.   
As far as   "accept violence as a legitimate means", well, that's why cops carry guns too, right?   Even Pierre Trudeau said "Just watch me!"

ps to "GO!"   Nice exit, I was always upside down by that point.

Tom


----------



## Lazy W (10 Mar 2005)

I don't know if this is the right place to post this... but does anyone know how to get a blood stain out


----------



## TCBF (10 Mar 2005)

Google "bloodstain removal" I assume you have a computer handy.  

Tom


----------



## Nielsen_Noetic (10 Mar 2005)

Canada is a fantastic nation; just thought I would throw that in.


----------



## GO!!! (10 Mar 2005)

All this survey talk makes me think of the ones where I submitted that I beat my wife, drank hourly, hated everyone (but white people of course) and the only thing holding me together was my riggers belt - maybe years of playing devil's advocate are catching up with us...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2005)

Nielsen_Noetic said:
			
		

> Canada is a fantastic nation; just thought I would throw that in.



Umm and this has to do with the topic on hand how?


----------



## Torlyn (10 Mar 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Umm and this has to do with the topic on hand how?



I'll go with a stab in the dark (uh oh...  stab...  Can I use that word, or is it too violent?) and say sweet bugger-all.  

T


----------



## big_johnson1 (10 Mar 2005)

The article (actual, not media), doesn't seem that bad. I think that it makes some decent recommendations, and doesn't attack the common soldier, but seems interested in how to improve life for those in the lower ranks. Maybe if the WO's didn't rush people so much to finish their surveys, there might be a way to fix some of the problems that we all know exist in the forces. You ask for a voice, well, here is your opportunity. Quite frankly I'm tired of all the people coming on here that ask "how much will I get paid?" and "when do I get my gun?" and stuff like that, maybe the types that are attracted to the forces are different from those who joined up 20 years ago. I don't think this survey is going to help solve all the problems we face today, but maybe, some of the real issues can be dealt with at the lower levels of training, and we can strengthen the forces as a whole.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Mar 2005)

Check out page 23......oh boy if one was to make those sweeping generalizations about say racesexcreed, poop would be everywhere....


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Mar 2005)

WOW!! Nothing intolerant about those statements as thet stand, eh?


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (10 Mar 2005)

I would reply to this post, but I'm supposed to go sing Kumbaya while sitting around a campfire, then I'm off to feed starving orphans and hug a few trees. Oh, and then bottle-feed a baby kitten back to health. Maybe this is the type of army our government would rather see.  :


----------



## Slim (10 Mar 2005)

I'd love to have a survey of reporters and the media personel that creat the headlines these days...

Wouldn't that make for some interesting reading! :

Slim


----------



## TCBF (11 Mar 2005)

"Canada is a fantastic nation; just thought I would throw that in." - Thanks for coming out.

"Kumbaya" - many years ago we sang some pretty rowdy lyrics to that song.  Alas, soldiers now pay others to do their singing for them. 

Q:  "Some of the old songs, Hans?"
A:  "Nein, nein, ze war ist over..."

These polls always look bad, until you compare them to the average population - the target population - that our pay and benefits package is designed to attract.  They share the same ignorant sentiments as we do.  There is no hidden "Military Gene".  

I loved the Psych interviews after Op APOLLO.     Talk about a bureaucracy trying to drum up business..

Tom


----------



## daniel h. (11 Mar 2005)

I'm personally not a CF member and am much less right-wing than many people on this site but I think that you are being awfully kind to the people who did this article. Talk about stereotypes. I personally know CF members, and some of them are very brilliant academically. The CF is not a haven for idiots as some militaries are. They may be angry at the world at times--mostly because it disappoints them. 

I found this to be the typical politically correct crap we get these days. Shame on you for having traditional values. Shame on you for opposing affirmative action. Shame on you for having your own opinion.

After hearing about what military life is like from friends, I can tell you that most people are 50 times lazier than CF members.

Never let the PC internationalists ruin your spirit. They are awful, and they will eventually lose their smear campaign.

I found this especially disturbing:

"They also tend to consider national superiority to be important and to see themselves as superior to foreigners," says the report. "These attitudes and values may, at times, result in conflict with <Canadian> values as expressed in the <Canadian> Charter of Rights and Freedoms."   But we are my god what are they thinking we would have it no other way."


Why don't the people let us decide what we think. Nationalism can be good--look south for an example of nationalism. At least their leaders care about their country, as imperfect as it may be. Europe was built on nationalism. 

I don't care if this was a survey--those were leading questions. In a democracy we can think what we like and if people don't like it they can eat worms. 

-I don't want pussy-willows defending Canada--go CF.


----------



## RCD (11 Mar 2005)

One word for this!
 "UNBELIEVABLE"


----------



## TCBF (11 Mar 2005)

daniel h, We thank you.

Tom


----------



## Freddy Chef (11 Mar 2005)

> *Military attracts violent louts - study*
> 
> ...
> 
> Col. Mike Capstick, a co-author of the report, says not all those who expressed an interest in the military would have signed on, nor would all who signed on have been accepted, survived training or unit integration. "We know that some of them are released because they're just not suitable for military service," said Capstick.



That kinda defeats the entire accusation, doesn't it? The CF may a attract *â Å“loutsâ ?*, the fact that the CF has standards that need to be met negates the association of *â Å“loutsâ ?* with CF personnel.



> ...While the report suggests attitudes "mellow" with age, it paints a picture of potential recruits who are spoiled, petulant and who "defer to external codes and rules" but look after their own self-interest...



When recruits *â ?look after their own self-interestâ ?*, that's called *â ?being a bladeâ ?*, isn't it? Wonder what happens to *blades* on course?


----------



## LawnDart (11 Mar 2005)

Sounds to me those who ran the study were right on the money.

My memory of the CF is quite consistent with their results.

I remember our Sgt's at Wainwright BSL asking us why we joined. My answer was.....

The brochures looked cool.

I also remember that many disagreements while I was in were settled with fists rather than words.

5 nights a week in Winnipeg were spent drinking at the Grant Hotel and teaching flat faced civvie types why they shouldn't have a go at us, while we spent 6 nights a week at Sassies  in Pet doing the same. ( Sunday night was movie night in the army of the 80's/early 90's.)

Don't shoot the messenger guys.

Matt.


----------



## LawnDart (11 Mar 2005)

O.K., O.K., I'll head you off. You can shoot the messenger. The questions those clowns ran were misleading. To an extent anyway. I hate psychologists, and I can't imagine anything more deluded than one who wears bars on his shoulders.

Still, their results aren't perfect, but they do have a point. Most troopies are fairly right wing, oppose nonsense like "Affirmative Action", have a decent and well earned hate on for the mumblies they deal with in the Third World, and are more prone to violence than their civillian peers.

 Still, that doesn't mean the average Canadian soldier is reading "Der Sturmer" regardless of what the overeducated verbose mofos who receive goverment grants to be verbose  happen to think.

We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence upon those who would do us harm."


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Mar 2005)

From another thread, but relevant here, I think:



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> A 26% response rate leaves a pretty significant margin for statistical error. A result this low (in any poll) raises the question of whether or not the only ones responding are those who have an axe to grind.
> 
> Cheers



I actually thought, without being too sure why, that 28% was a not bad rate.

I _googled_ â Å“polling response rates" and came up with a few useful hits, including:

From the Pew Research Centre at: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=211



> A typical five-day survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, employing standard techniques used by most opinion polling organizations, now obtains interviews with people in fewer than three-in-ten sampled households (27%). That represents a decrease of about nine percentage points (on average) from the late 1990s.1 The decline results from increased reluctance to participate in surveys and not from an inability by survey organizations to contact someone in a household.



And; from the Illinois State Bar Association at: http://www.isba.org/Association/11-15b.htm



> Following the opinion of a polling authority on statistical validity, the committee recommended that in circuits or appellate districts having at least 1,500 ISBA members, the minimum return be lowered from 300 to 250 ballots and the minimum response rate drop from 20 to 15 percent return for results to be released publicly.



I know we would have hoped that our own (disciplined) members would have responded at a higher rate to a 'closed' and internal survey but, it appears to me, they may have been acting just about like everyone else who receives an _invitation_ to comment.


----------



## Ghost (11 Mar 2005)

> Young Canadians interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends, says an internal army study obtained by The Canadian Press. Some findings in the 80-page report suggest army recruiters should carefully screen the 5,000 additional soldiers they plan to hire over the next five years



The army sure loves to add insult to injury.

Sorry I didn't devote my life to fighting crime and curing the world of all disease and win gold medals at the olympics while holding down 2 jobs and going to university.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2005)

The company that supplied the polling data, CROP, is owned by the chap that wrote Fire and Ice.  A book that highlights differences between Canada and the US.

This study is much of a sameness.

It seems that the role this company has carved for itself is to find difference.  Probably the reason it gets paid.  Not much "value" in declaring everything is as you thought it was and these are normal folks doing normal things and thinking just like everybody else.

Looking at the diagrammes, and disadvantaged because no numerical scale is included and no definition of where the crosshairs lie, the most interesting observation to me was in discussing regional differences.

The author went to lengths to point up the differences between regions and yet LFCA, LFAA, LFWA and the Force at large are pretty tightly grouped around the crosshairs and even SQFT, although an outlier, in the absence of numeric indicators may not be as far removed as it seems.

It is possible that differences exist, perhaps even likely.  It is also possible that significant statistical differences exist, although that is not evident from the paper.  However it is also possible to make too much of minor differences and blow them up resulting in unnecessary schisms.

The one issue I found interesting was the analysis of the recruit pool and its difference to the Force Means.  Having said that there is no indication as to how these young prospects differ from their uninterested peers nor is there adequate testing of how they differ from accepted recruits on day one, after a year, after 3 years.... Unless you follow a cohort through the system it is difficult to make inferences on either the raw material or the impact of the system on the raw material and how that influences outcomes.

I also found interesting the use of untested words to describe conclusions on values.  For example, "maturity".  The authors seem to agree that "maturity" is a good thing but it is undefined.  It was not a "value" that was tested in a "values" survey and yet the authors speculate that a lack of it may explain the attitudes of youngsters inside and outside the forces and that as they become more "mature" they will likely become more "tolerant".  I am not sure that follows.

On the issue of discipline in LFWA it states that because more LFWA members report more incidences of indiscipline therefore there are more discipline issues in LFWA.  Something of a logical circuit there.  The inference is that LFWA is less disciplined.  It could as easily be argued, from this data, that LFWA is less tolerant of indiscipline and thus less of a discipline problem.  That would seem to mesh with the notion of them and the SQFT and the LFAA being intolerant compared to those paragons of tolerance in "Toronto's Army" ;D.

I think the study is a useful exercise and can supply some interesting discussion points but, as usual, it doesn't warrant getting knickers in a twist over some headline writer's desire to sell papers by generating a sensational headline.

Cheers.


----------



## daniel h. (11 Mar 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The company that supplied the polling data, CROP, is owned by the chap that wrote Fire and Ice.   A book that highlights differences between Canada and the US.
> 
> This study is much of a sameness.
> 
> ...




The thing is, I've read part of Fire and Ice and I like the book. There are cultural differences. However, some Canadians just want their own country...suggesting all Canadians are pacifists and all Quebeckers are more pacifist than those in other parts of Canada makes me think it is possible to read too much into survey data. In a democracy there are varying opinions.

Canadians shouldn't have to prove they are different from the U.S. to justify Canada's existence.


----------



## canadianblue (11 Mar 2005)

I guess I'm more violent then the average Canadian, I want to punch the person who wrote that report in the face ;D

But seriously though, alot of that report made it sound like they want the military to only hire a bunch of liberal nutcases. I take it from the fact they criticize soldiers for not being liberal enough, ex. opposing affirmative action, traditionalists, etc.


----------



## Slim (11 Mar 2005)

I wonder whether its the company doing the survey at all....After all no one has yet to see the actual survey...And if I remember correctly, when I was in any survey or request for information that was handed out to the troopies was usually thrown away or completed half-heartedly with the intention of denying information in the hopes of avoiding this very situation...The "boys" know what the media do with this kind of thing!

As for the press...I have little doubt that there are just a few bad apples who make the lot of them look like they are out for the CF. But those "few" in the media have truely taken statistical information and turned it into another slag of the Armed Forces. Its not going to accomplish anything except to stir controversy...Which is excactly what the "few" in the media want!

They should feel ashamed of course, but that's like asking career criminals to suddenly mend their evil ways and go into flower arranging. Probably not going to happen in this lifetime.

Feeling truely disgusted with the media (as usual)

Slim


----------



## camochick (11 Mar 2005)

I'm usually not a huge fan of "the media" because i dont agree with some of their practises, but in their defense, if the public didnt want to read it, they wouldnt print it. Public interest drives the media to do the stories they do. If you want better stories or stories about certain things, hound a reporter for awhile, or else write your own stuff and try to get it published.  I think this study is crap and if i was a reporter i would have refused to write a story on it, but it is public information and somewhere out there someone wants to know this information.


----------



## mdh (11 Mar 2005)

> If you want better stories or stories about certain things, hound a reporter for awhile, or else write your own stuff and try to get it published



The question I have (as usual) is where is the CF response to this? Once again the strategy seems to be hide and hope it all goes away.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Slim (11 Mar 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> The question I have (as usual) is where is the CF response to this? Once again the strategy seems to be hide and hope it all goes away.
> 
> cheers, mdh



I think you'll find that if you were to give something like this the dignity of a response it would only aid the other side in drawing attention to the survey in question...Possibly opening the door for more of the same. 

We have a PAFO on site here and what they say is that the best thing to do is to just ride it out, instead of trying to justify or defend yourself. Remember that the media control whjat gets printed and if the CF jumped into that can of worms there would be no end to the whole mess.

Short answer; the CF treats this sort of thing with exactly what it deserves...Which is not to even condnsider it important or serious enough to respond to.

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2005)

Does the strategy work?

There were no follow-up articles in today's paper.

That's a good thing.

If there are no follow-ups by this time next week, that'll be a great thing.


----------



## mdh (11 Mar 2005)

> Short answer; the CF treats this sort of thing with exactly what it deserves...Which is not to even condnsider it important or serious enough to respond to.





> Does the strategy work?
> 
> There were no follow-up articles in today's paper.
> 
> ...




Slim/Kirkhill 

You raise some good points, but I would argue that it_ is_ important to respond - reputations can die the death of a thousand cuts, and I fear that's especially true for the CF these days.   

In the battle for public opinion we need to challenge every story that distorts the CF's record and gives inaccurate or misleading information.   (The CP piece in question ran all over the country since CP is a national wire service - which often serves small communities as well.)   

It may seem that the media doesn't want to consider other viewpoints, but by writing a letter to the editor or (even better) having a PAFFO from NDHQ call and challenge the reporter's accuracy does make a difference over the long run (IMHO). 

It could also have been refuted on the CF website, (which right now is little more than a piffle sheet.)   

And although I don't like to use too many comparisons to the US, the Pentagon does a very good job in challenging reporters all the time - do they always succeed? No. But they don't always fail either and that's why I would argue that no response - in the public's eye - can often be seen as a validation of the story, ie the reporter must be right because the CF didn't do or say anything.

A strategy of no response may seem to work - this time - but next time it may easily turn into a bigger (and ugilier) story. I think the Navy learned that lesson when it was accused of a coverup in the HMCS Chicoutimi investigation, and it let the story slide for over a week before they finally did something about it - and when they did put out their version of events, the story died.

The only mitigating factor in all this - (which I've noted in my previous rants on the subject  ) - is that there may be a lot of internal politics at work that makes it tough for a more proactive response.

cheers, mdh


----------



## mo-litia (12 Mar 2005)

I feel another verbal coming on...
 :-X :-X :-X


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Mar 2005)

hahaha Louts,

I love old words that are being reintroduced again, I give kudos to the paper for that....



> Those exploring a military career are not so much interested in serving as in "being someone and belonging to something."




Hmm God forbid a natural trait ingrained in our very being.  That has existed since we lived in caves and painted on the walls. Maybe the expectation is to have a bunch of loner individuals, void of all feeling and towing the party line.



> They tend to pursue happiness before duty, give personal life priority over work, and in ethical dilemmas tend to favour personal interests.



And this quality is not demonstrated by any other citizen, I suppose.  If they were to have us believe that, then the whole nation would be serving members of our military.



> They want to own status symbols and look good, and need to "break out of their isolation and share the collective emotions of a group




Hehehe yes, and it is a good thing that we do not have billboards, trademark symbols, and malls full of army gear!  Otherwise we would have an even more greater influence on the youth of today.

oi vey,

tess


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (12 Mar 2005)

Thank the gods!  The military is still doing it right!  Even in our kinder, gentler age we are starting with:
OTTAWA -- Young Canadians interested in joining the military tend to lack life goals, feel alienated and accept violence to achieve ends, says an internal army study obtained by The Canadian Press. Some findings in the 80-page report suggest army recruiters should carefully screen the 5,000 additional soldiers they plan to hire over the next five years. 
     Yes, we should screen, and keep as many of these as we can find.  The army has been turning agressive young men (and women) with the desire to make something of themselves, and be part of something greater than themselves into the finest soldiers in the world, for longer than any of us has been alive.  That the soldiers outside of Quebec felt that the highest calling was to fight to defend Canada indicates that however weak in manpower, however poor in equipment, Canada retains an army that recalls its purpose is to fight in defence of the nation that birthed them.  Violence to acheive ends, the use of deadly force in the pursuance of foreign policy as mandated by our civilian leadership.  Tell us where to stand, who to fight, then get the hell out of the way.
     I am dissapointed, but unsurprised that the Quebecois still are as insular as ever, and that the Franco troops on the whole placed warfighting so low on their priority list.  I served in the Line troops with many fine Quebecois linemen, and they, individually were as gung-ho as any of us, its just sad to see that they were the exception.


----------



## NMPeters (14 Mar 2005)

> It may seem that the media doesn't want to consider other viewpoints, but by writing a letter to the editor or (even better) having a PAFFO from NDHQ call and challenge the reporter's accuracy does make a difference over the long run (IMHO).



And what part of the article do you want them to refute? From all the articles I read on this issue (aside from the piece from Scott Taylor that I read this morning) all the information came directly from the survey. So what exactly is it that you want DND to say about it? I just don't understand why this article is so upsetting to you.


----------



## mdh (14 Mar 2005)

> And what part of the article do you want them to refute? From all the articles I read on this issue (aside from the piece from Scott Taylor that I read this morning) all the information came directly from the survey. So what exactly is it that you want DND to say about it? I just don't understand why this article is so upsetting to you.



 Major Peters,

There are several points in the CROP poll that underscore positive military values too - such as   dedication, loyalty, honour etc. 

The article produced by CP emphasized one - rather negative aspect of the survey. (Which was highlighted by a headline writer using the term "louts" which I didn't find in the survey and assume was placed there by the newspaper that ran the piece - not CP, but the body of the CP piece is still at issue). 

The question is about emphasis and context - and therefore the accuracy of the survey summary as a whole. 

And if the DND doesn't want to take issue with the CP item - who will?

Ultimately it doesn't matter if I am upset with the piece - the real question is what impact does it have on our audiences, our reputation and our credibility.   

I am suggesting (from my admittedly limited vantage point well away from NDHQ) that we might do more.   (Perhaps posting the entire survey on the CF website with an explanation of the CF viewpoint might be one tactic. There are others.)

That said, it would be great to hear some PAFFO input on issues like these,

cheers, mdh


----------



## TCBF (14 Mar 2005)

PAFFO's don't exist to defend the minisTRY - they exist to defend the MinisTER.

Remember the demise of the Cdn AB Regt?  We should have had a never ending series of WW2 paratroopers on TV, with other vets, talking about the realities of military life.  Did the PAFFOS even TRY to engineer such a campaign?  Nope, close ranks around the minister and let the rest of the CF twist in the wind.

Tom


----------



## Hunter911 (26 May 2005)

Personally, id definatly rather have a guy/girl beside me that knows how to, and WILL fire a rifle at someone, than a churchboy who believes all life is holy. I mean as long as you can control yourself, id think you could be ok. This just makes us sound like mosters and apes with no brains, when most of the people i know are good guys! Most of them even kids.


----------



## canadianblue (26 May 2005)

Doesn't the report suggest bringing in more women to moderate male members of the CF as well. I think its all BS in my humble opinion, and made up by a bunch of dumbasses who should try to find a real job.


----------



## Shec (3 Jun 2005)

_Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll...

...For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;_

- Rudyard Kipling


----------



## GO!!! (3 Jun 2005)

Well put.


----------



## Recce41 (6 Jun 2005)

Well Fellas
 If it was the one I filled out, I may have checked the A box, ( Do you like to meet people in far off places and kill them). HAHAHA. There are many of us out there, that have friends that work at deadend jobs. I feel I have the career, that only few can have. I can say, I have earned the right to say "I AM CANADIAN". 
 I say F$%^ them, we carry on so they can write that crap. Remember, always keep the faith. :evil: :tank:


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (11 Jun 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Well Fellas
> If it was the one I filled out, I may have checked the A box, ( Do you like to meet people in far off places and kill them). HAHAHA. There are many of us out there, that have friends that work at deadend jobs. I feel I have the career, that only few can have. I can say, I have earned the right to say "I AM CANADIAN".
> I say F$%^ them, we carry on so they can write that crap. Remember, always keep the faith. :evil: :tank:


     Keep the faith brother!  They don't have to understand us, just let us do our job.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2005)

_â ? The overall public image of Canada's sailors, soldiers and airmen was overwhelmingly positive, with 88% of those surveyed telling the pollsters they had a somewhat or strongly positive view of members of the Canadian Forces. Only 4% had a negative impression.â ?_

I guess Canadians don't bother reading our in-house surveys.

From today's _National Post_

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e3500fbd-7a1b-486c-8b1a-280a96e22f03


> Canadians support more funding for military
> poll
> 
> Chris Wattie
> ...



The not so good news is that:

"¢	Most Canadians appeared to be clinging to the notion of their soldiers being used for humanitarian or peacekeeping missions rather than more aggressive "peace-making" roles, and preferred co-operation with the United Nations to working with the United States.

"¢	Two-thirds of those polled said it was important for our military to be able to work effectively with the United Nations. Only 49% felt it should be able to operate with the U.S. military.

"¢	Asked to choose between sending Canadian troops on traditional peacekeeping missions and what the pollsters called "a peace-making role, which might involve fighting alongside other UN troops to force peace," 57% chose classic peacekeeping missions.

The Pierre Trudeau/Ivan Head _social engineering_ took root and has thrived.   There were a whole host of reasons why Trudeau was a petty, puffed up, pretentious intellectual poser - they are best exemplified in his absolute failure to understand anything much about his country and its place in the world.   He was totally, completely, _hedgehog_ like in Isaiah Berlin's terms, wrapped up in his one big idea - which ended up giving ammunition to Lévesque, Bouchard, Duceppe _et frères_.   This idea that we should (or could) withdraw from the big, bad world and confine ourselves to marginal _do-gooderism_ and still be taken seriously where in matters - in e.g. the G8 and WTO - was never, ever valid.   Trudeau was a nincompoop, a lightweight, and a poltroon.


----------



## Slim (13 Jun 2005)

Edward.

I have never ever met someone who could use the word poltroon and make sound like an insult before! 

nevertheless I agree with everything you have said.

What concerns me is that the Canadian public does not want us to deply with the U.S....Even though they are one of only 2 or 3 armies in the world who are professional enough in the field to be SAFE enough to deploy with!

I am somewhat surprised that Canadians actually care about the CF...I guess I';ve grown up in an enviorment where the military was a dirty word!

And finally last but not least...Peacekeeping...They really don't get it do they?!

Slim


----------



## Jungle (13 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Trudeau was a nincompoop, a lightweight, and a poltroon.


I also heard somewhere that as a youth, he tried to join the CF as an Officer, but failed BOTC (or whatever it was called at the time). I guess he couldn't stand failure, so he turned against the CF. Quite the Leader eh...


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Jun 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Keep the faith brother!  They don't have to understand us, just let us do our job.


Dear Canada,
  On behalf of all us uneducated, violent louts who have put your safety ahead of our own for the last 100+ years:  You're welcome.

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## c4th (13 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> _â ? The overall public image of Canada's sailors, soldiers and airmen was overwhelmingly positive, with 88% of those surveyed telling the pollsters they had a somewhat or strongly positive view of members of the Canadian Forces. Only 4% had a negative impression.â ?_
> 
> That is a nice turn around from 10 years ago when it was better to delete military service from your resume and replace it with "Time spent experimenting with drugs."
> 
> The proletariat is fickle and will believe whatever schlock is in print.  Let's be happy that the schlock is pro-military for now.  In 10 years it could be quite different.


----------



## Hunter911 (13 Jun 2005)

When i was about 13,  i told my Dad i wanted to join the army, and he told me to go to the U.S. and join there. Its only been in the last couple years that ive realised how a) little my father knows about the military...b) how much he hates the military... its kinda sad, but everyone has their own opinion right?


----------



## Fry (15 Jun 2005)

Violent? Yeah, really... as if war is nothing but crayons and play-doh. I hate it sometimes how people view the military as barbaric. It's the military that gave those people the right to complain about things in the first place.


----------



## pbi (17 Jun 2005)

We obviously still have some work to do, even though the great majority of Canadian soldiers deployed over the last few years have been on "green" missions not "blue" ones. The public still doesn't quite get it. One thing I would do, for sure, is to eradicate the constant use of the word "peacekeeper" in the media (and, I'm sorry to say, by some military people...) as a replacement for "soldier". To me it is like calling firefighters "catsavers". It obscures the reality of what we may be called upon to do, and it confuses everybody. I suspect that underlying some of this sort of thing is the ever-present Canadian suspicion and dislike of the US and its foreign policy.

Having seen both the US and the "international community" in action in Afghanistan, I would much rather see us serving alongside the US.

Cheers.


----------



## c4th (17 Jun 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> To me it is like calling firefighters "catsavers". It obscures the reality of what we may be called upon to do, and it confuses everybody.



Your post reminds me of a "to any soldier" letter I received last year in Bosnia.  It started by asking me what it was like to serve in a "blue beret" (not airforce) and ended by asking me to write back if I was still alive.  As it is the thought or condolence that count, and I did survive long enough to write back, I corrected the child on the beret.

I have many friends (ex soldiers) who are firefighters and cops.  I think I'll use 'Catsavers' and 'Ticketwriters'.


----------



## TCBF (20 Jun 2005)

I correct the ill-informed by telling them that my occupation is 'Soldier', and that peacekeeping is a task, like sh_thole digging.  I also tell them I no more want to be called a peacekeeper than I do a sh_thole digger.  I want to be called a Soldier.

When pushed, I will admit that, at least with sh_thole digging, I accomplished a practical, well defined  mission in a timely and cost effective manner, with the added benefit of having the immediate gratification that comes with the sense of a job well done.  I cannot say the same about peacekeeping.

Tom


----------



## Cpl.Banks (20 Jun 2005)

Oh my goodness, All along I thought that the Canadian ARMED forces were just adult Cadets doing their bit to help the vets and promote hugging(scrap that CHAP) and a clean environment...This is  certainly changing my attitude towards the forces, ah thank god we have the hippie tree hugging liberals that know everything and love to correct us...I mean enlighten... yes enlighten...

Whoever believes this garbage should really get a grip on reality, they say how the priorities were ranked 4th and 5th...out of how many? And if there were more than ten were some of them completely unrelated see above. Just another example of some anti military journalist trying to over analyse how the forces do sometimes have to use...you guessed it folks hugs...wait no FORCE

Christ this ends my rant...
UBIQUE!!!


----------



## NMPeters (21 Jun 2005)

We are actually not the Canadian Armed Forces. We are the Canadian Forces. The "armed" got removed some 15 or 20 years ago..ish. I don't remember exactly when.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jun 2005)

Hey, welcome back NM! Your right of course about the Armed part, but I still use it as my little rebellion against the tree huggers who believe we're the worlds Boy Scouts.


----------



## pbi (21 Jun 2005)

NMPeters said:
			
		

> We are actually not the Canadian Armed Forces. We are the Canadian Forces. The "armed" got removed some 15 or 20 years ago..ish. I don't remember exactly when.



Ahh, yes, that is true, sadly... But, in the hearts of the Believers..........

Cheers


----------



## Haggis (21 Jun 2005)

NMPeters said:
			
		

> We are actually not the Canadian Armed Forces. We are the Canadian Forces. The "armed" got removed some 15 or 20 years ago..ish. I don't remember exactly when.



I've still got one of those cheapo CANEX windbreakers in my closet that reads "Canadian Armed Forces" on the back.  Got it in Halifax in 1983.  Alas it doesn't fit anymore.  Must be a collector's item by now.


----------



## TCBF (21 Jun 2005)

NDA, Chapter 14,

"14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."

Tom


----------



## Acorn (22 Jun 2005)

Thanks Tom. I was going to point out that it remains in the NDA.

My own pet theory of why the "Armed" isn't seen much anymore is ink and paint. The amount we save by not painting those extra letters on our aircraft or having the inkjet spit it onto a letterhead is astronomical.  ;D

Acorn


----------



## TCBF (22 Jun 2005)

I thought we took "CAF" off the planes because the temptation was there to paint an "R" in front of it.  And God Bless anyone who did!

Tom


----------



## Haggis (22 Jun 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> NDA, Chapter 14,
> 
> "14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."
> 
> Tom



Tom:

So, I can legally squeeze into my archaic jacket without fear of persecution???  Clearly I am conforming to the letter of the law.

Jim


----------



## c4th (22 Jun 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> My own pet theory of why the "Armed" isn't seen much anymore is ink and paint. The amount we save by not painting those extra letters on our aircraft or having the inkjet spit it onto a letterhead is astronomical.   ;D



Probably true.  Though the savings are probably offset by the cost in man-hours at every level debating the dismemberment.


----------



## Acorn (23 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> Probably true.   Though the savings are probably offset by the cost in man-hours at every level debating the dismemberment.



Nah. It just goes back into General Revenue.

Acorn


----------



## c4th (23 Jun 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Nah. It just goes back into General Revenue.



I wonder if I can legally change my name to Receiver Q. General?


----------

