Author Topic: Sig Op QL5  (Read 49051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,992
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,481
    • Desert Rat
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #50 on: August 22, 2003, 10:35:00 »
If Lui has been wronged, he can file a redress. He seemed to think it was great sport earlier, to get on this means and deliberately push people‘s buttons by declaring how slack he was. If he got caught - boo hoo hoo   :crybaby:    Maybe you need to go back and read some of his earlier posts GK. Some of the Board members even tried to help him, and not by flaming him, either.

"Big Brother"???  Now that‘s really funny. This is a public forum, for pete‘s sake. If I‘m in the barracks doing my best impersonation of the RSM, and he walks in and hears me - too bad for me. Some of you guys are really something - where does it stop?  "The Man" makes us cut our hair too short - there‘s no practical purpose to that - it violates my Constitutional Rights" There are so many safety nets and policies, and checks/balances in place now, you‘ve already driven a portion of the old guys out of the Army - any gross abuses are rare, I would imagine. The Military is a closed society, which you asked to enter - if you don‘t like it, turn your kit in. If I ask to join the Masons, and don‘t like what I see, I get out.

Back room decisions? Of course - much of the business of the Regiment is conducted in the Mess. That‘s not secret. Officers and Snr NCOs are too busy running the Regiment to stop and have board meetings (or they should be). A lot of miscellaneous business is settled at the Mess - not just who "they‘re going to pick on" next..    :rolleyes:
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Fader

  • Guest
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #51 on: August 22, 2003, 11:56:00 »
It‘s me. I just changed my displayed name to something more appropriate.  After all, I think the biggest reason I got in trouble was because I put my name down.  That was really dumb, and I know it.  Guess that‘s youthful stupidity and idealism at work.

Anywho, I didn‘t mean I was blacklisted from CFSCE as an official thing.  Just the way things ended up my last couple of days there, it was quite clear to me that CFSCE didn‘t want me back.  That‘s all good, though, considering I don‘t ever want to return to CFSCE either.  I really didn‘t want to come back this year after the gong show last year, which I attribute much of my bitterness too.  :p   I wanted to see Kingston, but definitely not CFSCE.

GK, with many things you hit the nail right on the head in your description of me and what I think.  You, more eloquently, expressed what I failed to.

Right now, though, I just want to say screw it and let it be.  I guess that‘s somewhat hard, considering how I opened up pandora‘s box.  So I‘ll just try not to aggrevate the situation by saying anything too stupid about CFSCE or the CF.

I thought it funny how most veteran instructors here said they could weed me out on course for being the soldier I am.  While I know my course members could tell very easily, I know the instructors never could.  That is, until the end.  It came as a real shock to my instructors that I would do what I did.  I regret having grieved them, since they rank up there as some of the best instructors I‘ve had on a military course and I respected each of them.  But it‘s a fact, no instructor can inspect thier troops minds, thoughts and opinions if they don‘t let them.

I made a showing as a soldier who was on time,  worked hard and smart, and shut up on the job.  Maybe I‘m wrong, but I‘ve never met any instructor or supervisor who ever asked for more; and if they did, everyone knew that they were the ones being unprofessional.  My staff never did, which is why I respected them all.

That‘s the only thing I think I have left to say on the matter, my instructors rocked.

Willis052

  • Guest
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2003, 14:47:00 »
I find it utterly hard to believe that you think the grievance process is effective. Now that‘s funny. I happen to have a fairly intimate knowledge of the grievance process. Let me broaden your horizons. The grievance process is something that was put in place to make soldiers feel better about getting f*****. Nothing more, nothing less. Even under the "streamlined" grievance process I know all too well of instances where individuals are going on 1 yr from the date of submission without a ruling. Most individuals I know that have gone through the grievance process find it slow, painful, and the whole situation just causes severe duress as it poisons the working atmosphere. That aside what is our friend here to grieve? Nothing, he got c**k. Administrative actions taken against him? You can‘t grieve a charge.

You are absoloutely right that this is a public forum. Which means what? It still means that he is getting hammered on because he expressed his opinion. People are caught up in the fact that "he got caught". Caught for what? This is the whole foundation of the argument. He did nothing wrong, and therefore should not ever have to concern himself with being "caught", that‘s garbage. He did not use DND computers, he didn‘t discredit any individuals by name, he didn‘t release protected information. He explained what his attitude was, and complained about how the course was run. Big deal. I apologize for the big brother thing, I assumed a simple comparison would be effective. No such luck. What it means is that somebody wanted to shut him up. They gave it to him good. Do "they" not qualify as a big brother of some description? Somebody is watching and waiting, that‘s undeniable. Otherwise, if there was no big brother our friend shouldn‘t have been touched. Right?

Once and for all lets put the membership issue to rest. The "get out if you don‘t like it" comment is wearing thin. It‘s an assanine comment that holds no weight. Whether I am a soldier or a citizen these injustices are still injustices. Do you think anybody, with the exception of masochists, like getting screwed or ****ed around. It is not about being in or out. It is about right and wrong, black, white, and sometimes grey, moral or immoral. In or out doesn‘t change the fact that our friend was still wronged. You say the military is a closed society. It better not be, as the citizens tax dollars pay soldiers wages, equipment, and for whenever the military feels like taking administrative action against young soldiers for expressing his/her opinions, and attitudes about a specific topic.
It‘s 2003, do you know where your tax dollars are?

Just to set a couple of things straight. The 1867 Constitution was taken out in 1982 as it was deemed ineffective for the time. It was replaced by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In our friends case it is simple. Under Section 2.(b) of the charter he is guranteed fundamental freedoms. Read it, you may realize after that we can‘t just string ‘em all up right away.

Lastly you say gross abuses are rare. Man, take off the blinders. Just because you don‘t see them does not mean they don‘t happen. Higher ranks are given sweeping powers,the only checks and balances in the military when dealing with NCM‘s is a grievance. By the time a grievance has to go in you have already been screwed. If you think that is a check or a balance you are demented. If these people had a proper check and balance system there would be no grievances, would there.

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,992
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,481
    • Desert Rat
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #53 on: August 22, 2003, 15:07:00 »
So, if it‘s THAT awful, why are you in? Just for a pay cheque? Maybe you‘re going to write all these wrongs, single-handedly; thats certainly an admirable goal, I suppose.

I will agree on one thing, the system is not perfect. That is what the Chain of Command is for. Maybe everyone in your Unit, of a higher rank is out to oppress you - I don‘t know. Airing dirty laundry on a public forum (whining) is more effective than the grievance process? Maybe you should mutiny, GK - then cry because the system is unfair, and you are just standing up for your rights. If you feel that strongly, disobey - after all, you‘ve got the Charter of Rights behind you. Instead of biting the hand that feeds you, use your huevos.....stand up to the cruel system. If you believe in what you say, the Charter of Rights will protect you - right? Otherwise, drop the victim act - THAT is what‘s growing thin around here.

There‘s lots of "closed societies" that taxes pay for. Wander down to the local RCMP office, and ask for some inside information. Cops have a thin blue line, firefighters have a thin red line, correctional officers have it too. Are you truly that naive, and idealistic??

Injustices? You poor thing. There‘s injustices everywhere. My employer puts injustices on me. If it‘s not illegal, I‘m S.O.L  Nobody forces me in the door every morning, with a gun to my head. I can leave anytime I‘ve had enough. Nobody ever said life was fair.

For such a fan of free speech, you sure cry alligator tears, when someone‘s opinion is different than yours.   :)
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

radop211tc

  • Guest
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2003, 15:59:00 »
I hear McDonalds is hiring all the time for MIT‘s (Manager In Training). It appears there are a few potential candidates, that have the whole system figured out.

Tc...
VVV

hoganshero

  • Guest
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2003, 18:19:00 »
Actually as you learned during basic, during one of those boring classroom talks, you give up your rights under the 1982 charter of rights and freedoms and agree to be bound by the code of service discipline. Under section 19.14 of the QROs

19.14 – IMPROPER COMMENTS
(1) No officer or non-commissioned member shall make remarks or pass criticism tending to bring a superior into contempt, except as may be necessary for the proper presentation of a grievance under Chapter 7 (Grievances). (15 June 2000)

(2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
(a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members; or
(b) if seen by, heard by or reported to those under him, might discourage them or render them dissatisfied with their condition or the duties on which they are employed.

Offline Aquilus

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 371
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2003, 18:32:00 »
darn, beat me to it, i was just going to post that.   :rolleyes:

waterat

  • Guest
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2003, 18:41:00 »
I have worked in the offshore diving / construction industry all over the world, for many different companies - and from that and from talking to other people I can say that there is not a place, a country, a company, a workplace etc ad nauseum where people don‘t feel p***d off at some time, or where some injstice does not exist. It is a fact of life, cannot be avoided, accept it, deal with it. This applies to every facet of society, and from my travels, we in Canada should feel very, very fortunate indeed that we live in what is probably the finest nation on the globe. Try a couple months in Nigeria mate, that would open your eyes up a bit. Sort yourself out, and get in the real world.

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,992
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,481
    • Desert Rat
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2003, 18:51:00 »
Ahhh - a Bullseye from Hogan‘s Hero, and some voices of reason, from the others. ya big meanies   :evil:
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 302,121
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,104
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2003, 18:55:00 »
Civi side you can tell your boss to *uck off and quit on the spot. You‘ll be pressed for cash but thats about it. In the military if you get $hit brought down on you in month 4 of your 3 year contract your in for a crappy few years and you can‘t ‘just get out‘  Even reserve side they can find ways to be jerks.  You don‘t have your balls-hang-out gray PT shorts? Well you haven‘t offically handed in all your kit.

Oh ya, don‘t mention mutiny. APPARENTLY it‘s a big deal to pass around a memo getting people to sign it in order to kick someone out of the mess  :)
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,719
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #60 on: August 24, 2003, 05:37:00 »
The last word!


" A commander at any level cannot shirk unpleasant decisions, whether he be corporal or general or any rank in between. If he does shirk such decisions, he is unfit to command in battle."
Chris Vokes, My Story, 1985
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Willis052

  • Guest
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #61 on: August 24, 2003, 12:53:00 »
A close bullseye for Hogans Hero. But don‘t worry you still have rights.

" A Canadian serving in the armed forces does not give up the rights and obligations of Canadian citizenship. As was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in MacKay v. R: " This is a quote directly from the JAG Defence Law Training, CHAPTER 1.

It is also interesting that the Supreme Court of Canada has warned the Canadian Forces, because of cases like MacKay v. R that the CF needs to become Charter Compliant. And they have been accused by same of attempting to Charter Proof themselves rather than respect the rights of the soldiers. Consequently it has been widely speculated that the next time a Charter abuse is cited that the Supreme Court of Canada will in fact re-write several of the CF‘s documents on discipline and law so as they are 100% Charter Compliant. And that all actions associated to discipline or Military Law will be taken out of the CF‘s hands.

Fader

  • Guest
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #62 on: August 24, 2003, 14:03:00 »
Pandora‘s box, eh?

Just FYI, this is where I just bugger off and leave this topic.  

GK, I thank you for your convictions and efforts.  It was good seeing someone else who‘s not afraid to poke at the hornets nest a bit, but I‘ve been stung and chastised enough for me to know it‘s best if I leave it be.

Yonessa

  • Guest
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2003, 18:45:00 »

Offline Gumby

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,141
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 363
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2003, 18:10:00 »
wow good show.  I vote for the ruck up or ship out attitude.. at least you can wear the uniform.  Some of us have to wait for that kind of priveledge.
Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim

Offline Jack Neilson

  • Banned
  • New Member
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 38
  • Sigs - retired
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #65 on: November 10, 2003, 16:34:00 »
Well, you certainly come across as very immature.  I hope for the sake of others you never serve with Reg Force in the way of danger or in a situation where you may have to depend on the people you are dissing.  Chances are they‘ll come to your aid anyway.  Regarding the reserves ... as a regular I‘ve served with reserves on peacekeeping missions and generally found them to be well qualified and good soldiers.  Your comments seem to be denigrating to these people, not just to CFSCEE. Another post (not yours) mentioned the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment.  That was a stupid decison made for political purposes and not in the best interests of the Army or the country.  The overwhelming number of men in this Regiment were dedicated soldiers, not sadists and they richly deserve the name "best of the best" (no I never served with them but I certainly respect them).  Why you would even consider remaining in the Reserves given the attitudes you so greatly cherish is a mystery to me.
VVV
Jack Neilson
Velox Versutus Vigilans

Offline SynapticHammer

  • Member
  • ****
  • 625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 160
  • Noli Cedere / Never Give Up
Re: Sig Op QL5
« Reply #66 on: November 10, 2003, 18:00:00 »
Greetings Jack,

Although we haven‘t seen Fader_1572 (a.k.a. CFL_Lui) since 02 September, most of his comments since April ‘03 were responded to with the same sentiment.

We all agreed to refrain from falling for his flame-bait after so many wasted efforts to tune him in.

Welcome to the forum.

Cheers.

Yonessa

  • Guest
Sig QL5
« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2003, 10:26:00 »
I had the opportunity of taking my course with Fader_1572, and after my completion at CFSCE; I must admit that it was an excellent course. It was not good because of satisfactory course material; it was good because of a successful mix of outstanding instructors and students. Yes, there was BS, and student’s received crap; nevertheless, until the very end of the course, most students entered the course with the value of wanting to learn, and they received the privilege of instruction. University students pay dearly for that gift. Fader_1572’s post on Army.ca rose up a storm in CFSCE, and our course took it hard for his opinion; however, it is just that: his opinion. The military is an organization like many Civilian institutions, whereas it rewards success rather than effort. I personally think that wars are not won simply because people try hard, it is because they try hard to be effective. The attitude of the MALE does not succeed as there is inadequate effort, and although the minimum acceptable level of effort often goes un-noticed; this attitude returns scarce reward. An Entity is the Sum of its Parts, and I think that unless Canada wishes to have a MALE military, the MALE individuals are not useful within the CF.

I remember arguments with Fader_1572 throughout my summer at CFSCE, as we seldom agreed on philosophy, and I worked with him frequently in the field. Fader_1572 is not the useless bag of crap he claims to be. He is as inexperienced as can be expected; however, with the proper instruction and motivation, he is a competent solider. I did well on my course this summer. I did not succeed because I put in the greatest effort; I succeeded because I meshed effort with some common sense. If I was told to put a square in a circular hole I would make several attempts and than I would produce a solution. Canada is not mass-producing robots; it is producing NCMs that can rationalize. I think that the successful military of the future is not one that can puts in the most effort; it is the force that will out-think their opposition. The “most objects” do not win anymore, the most effective does. It seems that the Canada is making this the central attitude of the CF, and it is not remotely the MALE.

I exercise my freedom to argue with Fader_1572’s opinion, and I have read the majority of his posts on army.ca to ensure that my argument is sufficient. I noticed that the majority his replies simply flame “him,” rather than argue with “his opinion,” and that is a shame. It is disappointing to see that, on army.ca, veterans of Canada’s military demonstrate little defense to its success. The youth argue with or defend Fader_1572, and the hallmark defense for the old is only: “get more T.I.” With numerous years within the CF, a reply should be far richer with insight, than my brief experiences. It is about as useful to flame a reservist with two years T.I., as it is to disband a unit after two years, in service. However, this is all only my opinion.

Yonessa