# Profiles and Credibilty



## Fraser.g (7 Mar 2006)

I do not hate Quick Clot it is a tool. A tool that was still being evaluated and was not approved for use. Yes it was I that posted the cautionary because untrained people were grabbing it of the shelf thinking that they coulduse the product.

In the right situation, it will stop bleeding. If used incorrectly it can cause more damage than good. 

I know who I am, I know who AM is. We still don't know who you are or from what POV you are comming from.

Reg?
Res?
Combat Arms?
Medic?
retired?
Civi Medic?
Fire?
Wanna Be?

We don't know


----------



## JANES (7 Mar 2006)

Sounds like a personal problems.  

Thats not just the plan, that is the current sit.

It's also funny how attitudes change as things become widely accepted.  "All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed, Second it is violently opposed, Third it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, (1788-1860)


----------



## combat_medic (7 Mar 2006)

Janes,

Tread carefully. You are making a lot of offensive remarks to some very experienced soldiers. I would recommend you watch your tone and fill out your profile or you will be introduced to the warning system. 

Welcome to army.ca

combat_medic
Staff


----------



## JANES (7 Mar 2006)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Janes,
> 
> Tread carefully. You are making a lot of offensive remarks to some very experienced soldiers. I would recommend you watch your tone and fill out your profile or you will be introduced to the warning system.
> 
> Welcome to army.ca



You know, I dont take kindly to threats.  I simply say things the way I see them.  I also provide a lot of good information that some people must feel threatened by.  I assure you, I don't make anything up and only post facts.  As for my blank profile, I believe it keeps people honest.  It prevents bullying and brown nosing.  Regardless if I'm a 12 year old kid or a trauma surgeon, you can take my posts or leave them.  If you are so inclined, I hope at least they generate interest and discussion and make people go research the topics.  If I challenge people, then it is probably because I have info to the contrary of their statments, regardless of their credentials.  I will say it again, I do not make anything up.  I think it's important for people to be humble, and when people make statements that are out of their relm, I will call them on it.  I dont care if you are a doctor and you've been to Bosnia, that doesn't mean that you are a TCCC expert.  I don't claim to be anything.  For all I care, please consider me the 12 year old child that is a wanna be.  The fact remains that I only post facts and it is quality information if you are so inclined to look past your ego.  If people feel threatened by a blank profile, then that is not my problem.  By turning me off of this forum, you will loose a valuable information asset.  So for now, I will sit back and watch from a distance.  Good bye!


----------



## old medic (8 Mar 2006)

JANES said:
			
		

> You know, I dont take kindly to threats.  I simply say things the way I see them.  ....    Good bye!



Welcome to the warning system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2006)

> The fact remains that I only post facts and it is quality information if you are so inclined to look past your ego.  If people feel threatened by a blank profile, then that is not my problem.  By turning me off of this forum, you will loose a valuable information asset.  So for now, I will sit back and watch from a distance.  Good bye!



See, now here's the problem. I'm a babe in the woods when your talking about this stuff in here. So to see what side I'd lean to, I would look at a person's competence and experience. Here, that's done with a profile. The other way to make me take your side would be to quote your sources and/ or research. You've provided neither. You talk a good talk, but you stumble with your walk.

And speaking of inflated egos........stay away from sharp objects.


----------



## kj_gully (8 Mar 2006)

Looks to me like you've pissed off one of the best posters in here, a person using this site specifically for what it was designed for, to generate debate, and as an anonymous way of questioning accepted norms. The site will be less if all POV are not welcomed, and everyone should be able to take a little when they dish it. Anonymity is a right often exercised in forums like this, and remember @ least JANES has been honest enough to leave his/hers blank, as opposed to saying he is the CO of 4123 Water Buffalo battalion Armoured fusiliers, which he/she easily could do.


----------



## combat_medic (8 Mar 2006)

If you think Janes is the best poster here, then you really haven't been here very long.

There's nothing wrong with protecting one's anonymity, but to be spouting off about what the CF should and should not be doing operationally, or in training, and not being able to back ANYTHING up, is extremely dangerous. If he is just some punk kid, or even a 50 year old without so much as basic first aid, then yeah, he really has very little clout with which to be talking about medical policies, here or anywhere. Giving advice and opinions on medical topics, in particular, is extremely dangerous if you don't know what you're talking about. Particularly when people come on here and can't tell the difference between those with experience and those without and end up doing a lot of damage. 

His POV is welcome, but until he backs it up with credentials, it's pretty worthless. He also lipped off a staff member after already being warned several times. He (and you) were made aware of the forum rules when you signed up. You abide by them, or you're gone. It's that simple.

We're here to defend democracy, people, not practice it.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2006)

In some circles, the lack of credentials will automatically disqualify you.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2006)

I agree that JANES has contributed some of the more useful discussion points here. While he is doing an admirable job overcoming his crippling shyness   ......maybe I was concentrating on the substantive content of his posts, rather than judging any attendant degree of ego or self-esteem. 

For that reason, I also find listing his current load-station in his profile irrelevant as well. For some discussion points on this site, it's nice to know people's background. Here, with the discussion focused upon evolving protocols for reasonably unchanging A&P problems.....well, the informed content of his posts have persuaded me of his competency to provide insights. I don't believe him to be _armyboi_ or _silverbach_ reincarnate.

Was the warning based upon a complaint from someone whose feelings he had hurt, or was it administered pre-emptively, as prophylaxis? I believe this warning served only to stifle discussion. While I may have been rude once or twice in my military career, or been on the receiving end of someone's ego, no one died. 

At the risk of apprearing over-dramatic, I'd hate to think troops may suffer because potentially life-saving discussion was quashed because opinions were expressed without adequate politeness.


----------



## kj_gully (8 Mar 2006)

after reading the technical content of some posts, and it is easy to see  if someone knows what they are talking about. I think, after "duelling" with Janes on a couple threads, that he is VERY qualified in pre hospital medicine. Look around the site, and try to disagree.


----------



## old medic (8 Mar 2006)

Ref: Credentials

This is nothing new, they are asked for consistently at army.ca on each board. Whenever someone comments 
on equipment purchases, vehicles, weapons, etc., they are asked for credentials and their experience or to stay in their 
lane. 

When one discusses the art of medicine or discusses medical procedures with other medical professionals then one's 
experience and credentials are (and should be) examined.


----------



## Armymedic (8 Mar 2006)

Old Medic, can we remove this JANES content from an otherwise good thread in to a new thread with his name as the title?

The last good post was mine about Quickclot.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> The *last good post was mine * about Quickclot.



Well, at least we sorted out that ego issue


----------



## Armymedic (8 Mar 2006)

Ha....

Nowhere do I ever say I am humble.


----------



## old medic (8 Mar 2006)

This thread is split from, and initially contains replies too this message:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23593/post-347086.html#msg347086


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2006)

I'm sorry, but this is not the place for egos.

As I said in this Topic already, sometimes the lack of credentials will disqualify you from a discussion.  If Janes is someone like me, without any formal Medical Training, who has however taken an interest in Medicine and done a lot of research at the Library, but nothing clinical, and can 'Talk the Talk, but hasn't Walked the Walk", they can be a very dangerous person.  Especially in fields like Medicine, where lives may be on the line, a person may be able to influence someone, who doesn't know their background, into making a fatal error.  The last thing I would want to have happen to me if I were being treated for injuries, is to have a Professional give me treatment on the advice of an adviser who has not produced any credible credentials.  These discussions do involve "Life and Death", and without any credentials, how can we take the source of Janes comments without doubt and skepticism?  Would you accept my input to the discussion of Medical Procedures just as readily?  I would hope not.

Janes to me is a Publication of AFV information.  Not always exact in their facts, but used by most militaries to identify Weapons Systems and Equipment of Foreign Militaries.  To me, Janes logon therefore equates as a person who does a lot of "READING" of Journals, Publications, Open Source materials, etc.  Does Janes have any real experience in the Medical Profession other than that is very questionable.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Mar 2006)

> At the risk of apprearing over-dramatic, I'd hate to think troops may suffer because potentially life-saving discussion was quashed because opinions were expressed without adequate politeness.



I think if someone is developing medical protocols based on internet discussions, then there are bigger problems at hand than whether a (relatively minor) warning was administered justifiably.

Look, journeyman - I have no dog in this hunt, and the extent of my medical knowledge is "needles are pointy". That being said, I think the posters most slighted are the ones in the profession, perhaps because you are best equipped to sort the wheat from the chaff. That being said, other people read these forums - civilians, retirees, potential recruits, etc.

If there were ongoing discussions "out of your lanes", but regarding subjects of interest - maybe you would see it differently. If someone was handing out detailed legal advice, with no credentials, it wouldn't make you uncomfortable? How about if the poster became obstinate, when the lack of credentials was questioned? The Mods see this* much more frequently * in the equipment forums. (Usually) young posters that are well-read will often spout technical data that sounds factual, but at the end of the day - is inaccurate.

I think because this medical stuff is much more important than whether the "Bolivian 10.6 mm auto handcannon fires at a rate or 300 rpm or 463 rpm".. that credentials are even more important.

Full profiles are indeed optional here, but that often is at the expense of credibility.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Mar 2006)

Profiles and credibility? Right, I think I will change my profile to show myself as the VCDS and post a couple of thousand posts so that I can now be taken seriously by the "old timers" on this site! : A profile can be made to say anything and number of posts does not make you an expert!



> Old Medic, can we remove this JANES content from an otherwise good thread in to a new thread with his name as the title?



Yes, by all means lets remove anything that I don't agree/like! : Self importance of some on this site is astounding!


----------



## DG-41 (9 Mar 2006)

If you claim that you are the VCDS, that is easily checked.

Whereas a blank profile cannot be verified.

As far as I'm concerned, a blank profile is an admission of inexperience.

DG


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Mar 2006)

Quote,
  _Self importance of some on this site is astounding!_

As you have just proved.......


----------



## JANES (9 Mar 2006)

What is easier to prove or disprove; a profile or a post?  What is more important to prove or disprove?  Would you rather research someone or research a topic of interest to you?  Some of you no doubt have nothing better to do than to search for posers.  Myself, I couldn’t be bothered wasting my time, I’d rather search whether their post is accurate or not, and will probably learn something in the process.  Then it is confirmed in my mind that the facts are true or false and I have gained valuable information in the process.  It’s better to learn for yourself than to simply be told something.  I would imagine a post is easier to qualify or disqualify than a profile, and the journey much more enjoyable and noble.  

Any professional who is a “professional” will not take internet dialogue as doctrine.  They will research the topic for themselves.  Any non-medical professional, any reasonable person for that matter seeking information here should not take internet discussion as fact, and should research the topic for themselves.  What if my profile said Dr. Bloggins?  Does that mean that my posts are fact, and that all the Medics can go use fentanyl lollypops (how would they get them)?  No, because they are on the internet.  This is a discussion forum, not a doctrinal writing board.  The topics are meant to generate discussion and instigate research and learning.  These are not official documents or Medical Journals.  If I was writing a medical paper, then I would put my credentials.  There is a big difference.  This is a forum to discuss new idea’s and new concepts.  If I say the sky is green, I would hope that everybody will stick their head out their window and realize that’s not true and come back and say “the sky is not green, it is blue in my world”.

“The process has not been without controversy.  The debate encouraged by this publication began long before the Dispatches made it to print, all pointing to Tactical Medicine remaining a controversial topic.  There are legitimate worries that some people will read this paper and assume that, having read it, they are experienced enough to begin practicing tactical medicine.  That is something we want to discourage.  This publication is an attempt to convey that fact as well as identify new approaches and equipment requirements.”

This is a quote in the Forward of the Dispatches on TCCC written by Cpl Kopp.  I think there are some similarities here.  

If you want credentials read my posts and research the topics.  Research them with the proper authorities.  If you think fentanyl lollypops have no place in the field, then call Capt Butler and ask him his opinion.  He is the expert, not the civilian doctor who doesn’t have a clue about TCCC.  If you can’t find the information, ask for help, ask me for a reference, I given them in the past when asked.  If I have to make footnotes for all my posts, that would take some time, that I don’t have.  I will assure you, and this is as good a profile as you are going to get, that I do have field experience, and as worded before, I have “gotten my hands dirty”.  

My other question is this.  Does a soldier on verbal warning have to wear a big red sign around his neck stating he has been put on a verbal warning so that everyone else knows this?  Does the OC mention it in the O Group?

I thought the dunce cap was taken out of our school system.  I though our society had evolved.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Mar 2006)

JANES said:
			
		

> My other question is this.  Does a soldier on verbal warning have to wear a big red sign around his neck stating he has been put on a verbal warning so that everyone else knows this?  Does the OC mention it in the O Group?
> 
> I thought the dunce cap was taken out of our school system.  I though our society had evolved.



I could really care less who you are. It's the way we do things around here. Go read the Guidelines for more info. Don't like it? Don't get caught in the Warning System.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2006)

Where to start?




			
				JANES said:
			
		

> What is easier to prove or disprove; a profile or a post?  What is more important to prove or disprove?  Would you rather research someone or research a topic of interest to you?  Some of you no doubt have nothing better to do than to search for posers.


If I am going to research something, perhaps a quote from someone, it would be nice to be able to research that person along with the quote.   





			
				JANES said:
			
		

> Myself, I couldn’t be bothered wasting my time, I’d rather search whether their post is accurate or not, and will probably learn something in the process.


 Arrogance, never made for good research.  A neutral approach and collection of all the facts would seem essential.  Even posers can get facts right at times.   





			
				JANES said:
			
		

> Then it is confirmed in my mind that the facts are true or false and I have gained valuable information in the process.  It’s better to learn for yourself than to simply be told something.  I would imagine a post is easier to qualify or disqualify than a profile, and the journey much more enjoyable and noble.


 So very true.  Unfortunately, you don't want to make all the facts known.  You don't pose any credentials, so you don't really have credibility.  Like you say, "I couldn't be bothered wasting my time." 



			
				JANES said:
			
		

> Any professional who is a “professional” will not take internet dialogue as doctrine.  They will research the topic for themselves.  Any non-medical professional, any reasonable person for that matter seeking information here should not take internet discussion as fact, and should research the topic for themselves.  What if my profile said Dr. Bloggins?  Does that mean that my posts are fact, and that all the Medics can go use fentanyl lollypops (how would they get them)?  No, because they are on the internet.  This is a discussion forum, not a doctrinal writing board.  The topics are meant to generate discussion and instigate research and learning.  These are not official documents or Medical Journals.  If I was writing a medical paper, then I would put my credentials.  There is a big difference.  This is a forum to discuss new idea’s and new concepts.


What if someone slips and works on an opinion expressed by someone posing as a Professional?  I guess that means that we shouldn't consider you a Professional and 'qualified' person, but a somewhat learned outsider.



			
				JANES said:
			
		

> "There are legitimate worries that some people will read this paper and assume that, having read it, they are experienced enough to begin practicing tactical medicine.  That is something we want to discourage.  This publication is an attempt to convey that fact as well as identify new approaches and equipment requirements.”
> 
> ....  I think there are some similarities here.


We agree and that is what we are saying to you.  You, with not credentials, are posting some very serious matters in this forum.  For all we know you could be a Rainman.



			
				JANES said:
			
		

> If you want credentials read my posts and research the topics.  Research them with the proper authorities.


 You could be quoting anyone from a numerous amount of Medical Journals and Libraries.  





			
				JANES said:
			
		

> .  If you can’t find the information, ask for help, ask me for a reference, I given them in the past when asked.


 Again, why would we value your credibility to give references? 





			
				JANES said:
			
		

> If I have to make footnotes for all my posts, that would take some time, that I don’t have.  I will assure you, and this is as good a profile as you are going to get, that I do have field experience, and as worded before, I have “gotten my hands dirty”.


 We know no such thing.  

If you don't have the time......do we?


----------



## Gouki (9 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Profiles and credibility? Right, I think I will change my profile to show myself as the VCDS and post a couple of thousand posts so that I can now be taken seriously by the "old timers" on this site! : A profile can be made to say anything and number of posts does not make you an expert!
> 
> Yes, by all means lets remove anything that I don't agree/like! : Self importance of some on this site is astounding!



Completely agree. It is sad that a disturbing amount of people here somehow equate no. of posts with experience or credibility, when one could make the argument that the person with less posts makes far more contributions and intelligent discussion than someone with twice the amount of posts which contain jack all.

What's that proverb ... A fool speaks loudly and a wise man not at all? I probably butchered it but it's along those lines.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Mar 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> Completely agree. It is sad that a disturbing amount of people here somehow equate no. of posts with experience or credibility, when one could make the argument that the person with less posts makes far more contributions and intelligent discussion than someone with twice the amount of posts which contain jack all.
> 
> What's that proverb ... A fool speaks loudly and a wise man not at all? I probably butchered it but it's along those lines.



Wow, that was quite loud.

dileas

tess


----------



## Gouki (9 Mar 2006)

Yeah yeah, aren't you clever for making such a reply. Ten points for you for thinking that up on your own.

I was agreeing with 2Cdo, don't get your panties in a twist over it.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Mar 2006)

I will say nothing.

Since my large post count does not quantify me for anything in your books.

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> Completely agree. It is sad that a disturbing amount of people here somehow equate no. of posts with experience or credibility, when one could make the argument that the person with less posts makes far more contributions and intelligent discussion than someone with twice the amount of posts which contain jack all.
> 
> What's that proverb ... A fool speaks loudly and a wise man not at all? I probably butchered it but it's along those lines.


Should I therefore accept your quoting from the M242 25mm Gunnery Manual, that you can access in the next hangar, or online, the fact that you are indeed a RCD Coyote Gunner?  The same could be said about many who post things that sound almost right, but aren't.  Do we have to truly accept 2Cdo as a former Airborne soldier, just because he can get some of the talk correct and likes the Airborne Regiment Badge?  As he said, he could make his profile look like that of the VCDS.  Posers step on their dicks eventually.  2Cdo has posted and is accepted for what his profile says he is.  People in the Medical Branch are questioning JANES, and JANES doesn't want to clarify where JANES is coming from.  JANES is just a faceless entity, with not credentials to back up what (s)he is posting.  JANES arrogance and ego is getting the best of him/her.

Now do I have to ring up the QM or RQ and have one of them get up and out of their office to slap you off the back of the head?  Get back to work!   ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Mar 2006)

> Wow, that was quite loud.


Case in point! Large post count can simply mean way too much time on ones hands! :
Bruce please point out my posting on how important I am, because I can't seem to find it! The point I was making, and some failed to see themselves in it, is that there are people who base credibility solely on a profile and post count! If that is all it takes to be credible on this site then we have an incredibly large amount of suckers, maybe I have a bridge for sale! ???


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Case in point! Large post count can simply mean way too much time on ones hands! :
> Bruce please point out my posting on how important I am, because I can't seem to find it! The point I was making, and some failed to see themselves in it, is that there are people who base credibility solely on a profile and post count! If that is all it takes to be credible on this site then we have an incredibly large amount of suckers, maybe I have a bridge for sale! ???



I see, yet a small post count that consist of antagonistic statements is preferrable?

Oh I get it now...

dileas

tess


----------



## Gouki (9 Mar 2006)

I finished PT and am sitting here half dead.... Sports afternoon George!  ;D

That being said, I have no comment on what's going on with JANES, I think (as you pointed out) it will sort itself out eventually one way or the other. But, that wasn't really what I was getting at. Disregard everything involving Janes, I commented on how number of posts does not equal expertise, and I was expressing my agreement with 2Cdo's views. I've been seeing and thinking of it for a while now but didn't care enough (well until now) to say something, but it seems that too often now some (not mentioning names here) put a bit too much importance on a post count.

And 48th, I did not say that large post counts _exclusively_ mean you contribute nothing, you took that ball and ran the court with it all on your own.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2006)

2 Cdo

I wouldn't exactly say that.  I put more credibility on the 'quality' of the posts and the profile, rather than on the 'Quantity' and the profile.  To me there is a big difference.

When a poser posts, they will be initially accepted for who they say they are.  Eventually, as they post, the people in the know (Trade, experience, etc.) will have a sixth sense kick in and say to themselves that "something isn't right here" and then give the poser all the rope necessary to hang themselves.  Should we give JANES all the rope (s)he wants?

There are a few very knowledgable people on the site, who have answered a lot of questions and contributed to many of the discussions, who by doing so have built up quite a few posts.  Others are 'C' Types and prefer to lurk.  (Using the DISC model)


----------



## Scott (9 Mar 2006)

Number of posts does not equal expertise, I am in full agreement. 

I do not agree that there are a large number of people here who rely on their post count as a back up for debates.

The only complaint I have ever heard about someone equating post count to experience is 2 Cdo.

Maybe I have more time on my hands, maybe I get my work done faster - who are you to judge that?

I'll go back to staying out of this one now.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Mar 2006)

> And 48th, I did not say that large post counts exclusively mean you contribute nothing, you took that ball and ran the court with it all on your own.






			
				Steve said:
			
		

> Completely agree. It is _sad _ that a disturbing amount of people here somehow equate no. of posts with experience or credibility, when one could make the argument that the person with less posts makes far more contributions and intelligent discussion than someone with twice the amount of posts which contain jack all.
> 
> What's that proverb ... A fool speaks loudly and a wise man not at all? I probably butchered it but it's along those lines.



Oh Sorry Steve,

I should have read in between the lines.

dileas

tess


----------



## Libre (9 Mar 2006)

It never fails to amaze me how small minded people can make data mountains out of digital molehills...

Free discussion has never existed on this site; so don't get too bent out of shape when cohesive arguments result in 'hurt feelings' warnings.  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Mar 2006)

Oh, hello "Mo-litia".....good bye "Mo-litia."

Cant say it was fun.......


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Mar 2006)

> I put more credibility on the 'quality' of the posts



I agree 100%!



> The only complaint I have ever heard about someone equating post count to experience is 2 Cdo.



99% of the people who post here are good to go. The remaining 1% (who predominatly have large post counts) seem to think that their large post numbers gives their posts "more importance"! If you haven't seen it in their posts, then you haven't been looking!

I am not going to further this as it is just one mans observation. To the 1%, and you probably know who you are, I will avoid commenting on anything you post as you will come back with snide remarks about inexperience or "time on site" nonsense. I don't comment on things I don't have an understanding of, maybe some people here should consider that as well!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Mar 2006)

Libre said:
			
		

> It never fails to amaze me how small minded people can make data mountains out of digital molehills...
> 
> Free discussion has never existed on this site; so don't get too bent out of shape when cohesive arguments result in 'hurt feelings' warnings.  :



Was wondering how long it would take you to post in your new incarnation. Just can't get that army.ca monkey off your back eh mo-litia?


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Mar 2006)

> 99% of the people who post here are good to go. The remaining 1% (who predominatly have large post counts) seem to think that their large post numbers gives their posts "more importance"! If you haven't seen it in their posts, then you haven't been looking!
> 
> I am not going to further this as it is just one mans observation. To the 1%, and you probably know who you are, I will avoid commenting on anything you post as you will come back with snide remarks about inexperience or "time on site" nonsense. I don't comment on things I don't have an understanding of, maybe some people here should consider that as well!



Yes,

That nameless, evil 1%, that causes problems for the rest.  Next thing you know they will start wearing patches.

So you had to talk about this myusterious group for a reason, but will not name them.

Thanks for the insight.

dileas

tess


----------



## muffin (9 Mar 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Oh, hello "Mo-litia".....good bye "Mo-litia."
> 
> Cant say it was fun.......



WOW! His post was only there for a minute or less! That is amazing Bruce!


----------



## couchcommander (9 Mar 2006)

lol, you military types get so funny when someone doesn't conform

But anywho, I see two perspectives (mostly) on this thread, those that argue that experience on this forum and a profile can aid in evaluating the content of a post, and those that say you should base your evaluation mostly on what is said. 

I think what needs to be understood, however, is that the "profile" camp isn't saying you just accept, at face value, the posts of anyone with an extensive amount of activity, nor those who have a well padded profile. On the contrary, I think they would be just as concerned about evaluating the content of the posts as well. However, I (hope) that what they ARE saying is that the anomnity of the internet also raises a lot of questions, especially on an open forum such as this. Further, given the immense amount of information, some type of system needs to be in place to quickly establish where people are coming from in their perspectives (most importantly, whether it's informed or not). Yes, someone can put on there 30+ years, major in the killer squirrels regiment, etc., but if you combine that with a thousand or so posts where they have managed to largely avoid the rath of the Moderators, and as well not have been shamed into oblivion by the truely qualified and experienced posters on this forum, it does say something to their credibility. Again, though, I am sure that they, like me, would not consider it the end all be all of source evaluation.

As for the other camp, they too have a point that regardless of where a person is coming from, their posts should be looked at and evaluated on their content, not just on who is saying it. Many great ideas have come from people with a new perspective who are not part of the establishment. However, I do have to agree that many of us don't have the time to do this research, and find it much easier to use the built in "cred-o-meter" feature this site has as a tool to do this with (IE some trooper confused on a particular point comes here looking for answers, I would much rather they take the viewpoint of a_majoor or TCBF on issues of armoured doctrine or something of the such, than me, whos posts would not be based on established doctrine, but thoughts that occured to me when reading certain books/newsstories, and largely being posted just to see why they are wrong. Of course the trooper should know not to go looking on a forum, but stranger things have happened). 

You are right that this means as a new poster, you have to go a lot farther to make your point than someone else would. However, I would say that this is not dissimilar to how the world works anywho IMO.


----------



## Trinity (9 Mar 2006)

I don't seem to get it.  

First thought
Army.ca is not a public board... just accessible to the public.  
All members agree to a set of rules and regulations upon signing up.

And then they want to complain about what they agree to.

Second thought

Its a small army.  If I say I'm trade R62 (or any trade) there are enough
people in your local area or unit to verify who you are.  Unless you are some
secret squirrel, why not post your experience.  Unless of course you are
afraid of your posts getting back to where you work at which point maybe
you should be careful on what you post. 

I would ALMOST say... that this site ISN'T a democracy.  It's owned
by one person, subcribed by many, moderated by a few.  If you don't
like it there are other sites to go and post at...   http://www.gemusa.com/veteran/chatrooms.htm

Play nice or don't play at all.


EDIT   Well said (mostly) couchcommander... but you only have 135 posts.. so I'm going to have to ignore your comments!!


----------



## Franko (9 Mar 2006)

All this over filling out a profile so the members can understand where the info is coming from.....

Personally....I like to know who I'm talking to and where the info is coming from.

Most people on the site fill it out....and quite truthfully at that. It adds credibility to their posts.

I liken it to walking into a doctors office....no diplomas on the walls...the red winky-dink goes off.

For the concerns of people coming here and just throwing up a bogus profile to placate to the masses just because they can........it's a small military, posers are and have been found out before. Go ahead....have at 'er.

If you are able to stand by your posts....then a little info doesn't hurt.

We're not asking for a SIN Number or what blood group you have.

I've had members (who are serving members of the forces) come up to me here and in theater to question me on many topics...and had some really good discussions. 99% are like that. It's great to put a face to a name. The profile is a way to put experience to a name.

Mind you.....Some act like childeren....which results in me walking away, chuckling.

As for freedom of discussion....the only time it stops is when there is a Guideline broken.

Regards


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Mar 2006)

The last two posts about sums it up. Everything else has been stated, with no concensus reached. I'm sure, if there's anything earthshattering to add, a Mod will reopen it, if asked.


----------

