Likelyhood of VOR for Combat Arms Officers

[medaid]

I don't think you read my message, I'm stating that VOR IS AN OFFICIAL TERM. 

Where's the reference?

 

[benny88]

Yes... because we all know that the ROTP world is the REAL world... :

Nobody has claimed that. The question was asked pertaining to the ROTP world.

If arguing with senior CF members who have provided References and Sources, simple statements without References or Sources don't hold much water.  Unofficial use of abbreviations, does not make them official, no matter how often or widely used they may seem to you.  Checking your profile, and finding you listed as a 21U, still doesn't help the argument.

  This is the header from a memo a friend forwarded to me that he was sent from our Subsidized Education Manager (a Capt.):

> > SUBJ: VOR DENIAL
> > REF: REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENT DATED 07 OCT 07


 Like I said, I'm not arguing that it's correct according to the regs, or even outside of our ROTP bubble, but if my CoC uses it, how the hell is it wrong for me to?

 

[Quag]

Read the Subsidized Education Manual put out every year by CFRG Borden... MedTech you should have one, shouldn't you?

 

[George Wallace]

Then you would think senior CF members would know better George...

I don't think you read my message, I'm stating that VOR IS AN OFFICIAL TERM. 

And obviously, you never read mine.  As MedTech said: "Where's the reference?"; the reference to back up your untrained statement that "VOR IS AN OFFICIAL TERM"?

 

[SAUVE]

It's no longer an issue, it's resolved.  Im still sticking with the term "VOR" personally, just from what I'm use to.

 

[Quag]

You are not wrong Benny.  But I'm not gonna fight this one down to the bone like many other topics end up.  

The fact is, Voluntary Occupation Reassignment is a term, and if anyone disagrees, then so be it, I don't have the time to waste arguing this one.

 

[benny88]

I hope this clears this up. Look at the bottom for the term VOR.


Official enough?

PS- Note that this is an example form and does not violate any PERSEC as it doesn't actually refer to anyone.

 

[medaid]

Read the Subsidized Education Manual put out every year by CFRG Borden... MedTech you should have one, shouldn't you?

Nope I don't have one. Why? Because I don't work in recruiting anymore, why should I back up your sources for you?

 

[Quag]

I never once asked you to back up my sources...I was encouraging some professional development.

 

[dapaterson]

Words have meaning.  In the military, imprecision or use of the incorrect term can have serious, even fatal effects.  For those interested in the need for precision in language in the military, may I recommend this site:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT114006-eng.asp

Short version:  The Sqn commander of the Snowbirds used non-standard language on the radio net.  Two aircraft collided as a result.  One aircraft was lost.  The pilot suffered minor injuries.  The passenger suffered major injuries.  All because someone was not precise in their use of language.

This thread is titled "Likelyhood [sic] of Vehicles Off Road for Combat Arms officers".  That's the what the official Canadian Forces abbreviation expands to. That someone in Kingston has used that abbreviation in a non-standard way does not make it correct.  "The ROTP world" eventually becomes part of the real world.  And in the real world, misunderstandings due to the use of incorrect terminology can have severe impacts (see above).

 

[Scott]

The above from someone with mucho time in. Sums it up quite nicely, IMO.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand locked.

Usual caveats apply.

 

[Scott]

Hummm.

I just noticed that the thread title changed so I went ahead and changed it back to its original

It's not kosher to come back and edit posts and/or thread titles when you step into a debate.