PMedMoe said:So, then what exactly are you suspicious of? Do you think these women are ringers or something?
These women were on the course before the current "agenda" that the military supposedly has. There is no evidence that they were placed on their course as part of some equal gender representation scheme. If that were the case, I'm pretty sure the CF would have made damn sure that the story made it into a paper bigger than The Comox Valley Record.
But you go ahead and keep your tinfoil hat on.... :Tin-Foil-Hat:
PMedMoe said:I don't consider 2-3 out of a trade of approx 130 pers could be considered a "monumental" shift.
You still have no evidence besides your supposition.
Maybe you should read about Hitchen's razor.
monumental shift in the type of candidates being on course
clgrip said:The agenda has been the diversity targets the CF has had long before these women even submitted their vot applications. And my point is that these targets have been enforced from higher up the CoC, higher than anyone who's at the school. If you don't think a monumental shift in the type of candidates being on course is indicative of diversity agendas being pushed then you're naive.
clgrip said:I clearly said in course, as in the course make up shifted. If you want to twist my words, you're going to have to try much much harder.
Also you'll have to forgive me if I don't take the opinion of someone who has to rely on news articles to get their information about a certain trade too seriously.
emily1212 said:I was wondering if anyone could tell me roughly how much a SAR TECH makes?
Ditch said:They are trialing new two-piece flying suits - based upon what the CANSOFCOM guys are currently wearing.
Just because they prefer to get out halfway through the flight doesn't make them non-aircrew; they simply have the option of placing less faith in pilots than you do.Dimsum said:Interesting - any chance those new suits will be issued to aircrew too?
Technically, SAR Techs are flight crew, not aircrew.