A Navy Chief Would Like to Join

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

There is an active duty Navy Chief that has applied for membership. We didn't consider that might happen. What do you think? Should our Navy brethern be considered part of this Mess?

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

Although I really don't have a problem with it - I have to ask...

How do we "prove" that the applicant is a "Chief" - or even in the Navy? We're all in-bred and know each other or at least know someone that knows each other. "Outsiders" are unknown and may be unverifiable.

What an interesting problem! Hmmmmmmmmmm

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Senior,

Initailly I say no. There may be some value in having another services Chief's input, but I've seen firsthand that there are some very big differences in the way we conduct business.

If we go with once a Chief always a Chief then I guess so. We do utilize their mess for PCPO signatures and the such, where and when available.

I agree with you, I never thought of this as something that would happen. I echo Gerald "what an interesting problem".

My question now is, do we allow E-7 and above from all the services to join if they want to? We have CG members who go to the Army's Seargents Major academy, and we do give our Air Force brethen the title "Honorary Chief" at the CPOA. All we need now is a Gunnery Seargent and we'll have all the bases covered.

What to do, what to do???????????????? :confused:

I say we put it to a vote.

Todd :D

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis...tough call on this one.

On one hand it might be nice to get a Navy Chief's perspective on things, on the other hand it's CGChiefs.com...not AllChiefs.com. The ability to verify that this person is an actual Chief is also an issue. If we open this board up to all services (or just the Navy) it might turn into something that we don't like.

Right now my gut tells me no.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

So, when we say that once a chief- always a chief, we only mean CG Chiefs?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

So, when we say that once a chief- always a chief, we only mean CG Chiefs?

That's why I said it was a tough call. For me (right now) because of the intent of this board, I think it should be limited to Coast Guard Chiefs. I'll be the first one (we'll maybe second - Stu) to lobby for the "Once a Chief, Always a Chief", but in this case...

Maybe someone will bring up points that I'm not considering. Until then,my gut still tells me no.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Dennis,

When I joined, I knew I wasn't current with all the rules and regulations affecting today's CG. That in itself limits my participation to where I have an opine without dragging too much into yesteryear.

The Navy CPO would be much in the same boat.

I say let them in and see what happens. It could be well worth it.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

I have thought about this, and it is a tough call. I never thought we would actually see this take place.

I guess my initial first thought was no, but after thinking about it I believe that if we can determine that it is indeed a Chief in good standing, then I say bring him in. Maybe not to the closed door area though. I kinda feel like Joe in that I don't think there will be an issue of another service Chief trying to change how we do things, but it might be a benifit to hear what our other service brothers and sisters have to say. After all, they are in the same situations we are, and they deal with many more people.

I went through my CCTI at Key West, and there were lots of Navy Chief's there for it. Hell we even had to take pics of us PCPO's standing in front of their mess, and we had to serve them coffee and donuts. I for one was honored to have them present and afterwards to be invited into their mess.

I vote to give it a shot and see how it goes. They are welcome in our mess and this is our mess, is it not?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And I'd say no. As advertised , this is not a Mess, it's an open discussion forum for CG Chiefs. I would open my Mess to him if he were down in our area and discuss an issue that he wanted to. But this forum is set up for CG Chiefs to discuss issues that effect CG Chiefs. I'm all for "Once a Chief, Always a Chief." But a CG Chiefs' discussion board, should be a CG Chiefs' discussion board. If he had issues that needed to be expressed he could contact a current member and have them ghost write, as has been done before. If he had views that he would like to express, he could submit a guest essay. There are avenues open to him, or anyone else who wants to have their message heard. I'm not knocking the Navy, but that was the choice he made. He is a Chief, I welcome his input, but as an invited guest, not as a MEMBER of this forum.

As just so you know where I stand,....I'm also opposed to granting "Honorary" Chiefs membership as well.

[SKC Eric S. Highland]

My .02 cents.

I say no.

I will not be wishy washy in my vote and thus cheapen it or my stance. However, my vote is based on serious thought and reflection.

While I do appreciate all of the Armed Forces and the leadership, expertise and experience that the general E7 and above enlisted membership of all services can bring, I also have to recognize that this Mess is a haven for Coast Guard Chiefs. A unique group of individuals who have a distinctive set of rules, missions, situations and issues to deal with.

This is NOT AllChiefs.com as it was stated earlier. I suppose that if someone saw fit to create a site like that, the membership might be massive. This is cgchiefs.com a place for that unique group of individuals that make up OUR senior enlisted leadership.

It would be irresponsible and arrogant to our own demise to think for a moment that we as a CG Chiefs Mess could not benefit from the wisdom of our peers in other services. It would be downright concieted and foolish to turn a blind eye to the value of our peers. However, that wisdom can be specifically sought after should we come to decisions or topics where we collectively deem those thoughts, expertise, and experience beneficial.

I know that there are many who would disagree with me on this, and at the same time, hopefully some that agree. But this is my stance, my voice in the Mess for what it is worth.

v/r

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Put me in the No column here.

While we are all brothers and sisters with the anchor, there are so many vast differences in the way things are done, definitions, etc.

What do you want to do with this board turn it into the Chief Petty Officer's Association Forum? They allow all E7-9 from all Services (AD & RET)

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

I just want to point out that some of you that advocated for officers and retirees to join, are advocating against the Navy Chiefs.

The line doesn't go "Once a Coast Guard Chief, Always a Coast Guard Chief."

So, evidently there is a line to be drawn with everyone. That kind of thinking takes some of the thunder out of the argument that "Once a Chief, Always a Chief" is a well-defined, undeniable precept to the Chief's Corps.

Hmmm....maybe you all aren't as attached to your beliefs as you think you are.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

No...I'm steadfast in my beliefs. Once a Chief always a Chief. But this is a CG Chiefs' site, not a Chiefs' site. That's the way it's advertised. Now if you wanted to ask if I have a problem if you, Dennis, allowed Navy Chiefs access to the site you, Dennis, created, I would say No.
But that's not what you asked. You asked if we should. I still say no. It's not about being a Chief, it about being a CG Chief. You could be a Kansas City Chief, if you weren't an E-7 to E-9 in the CG, I don't think that you should have access to post on the site.

Edited to add

This site is devoted to honest, open, and frank discussions among Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers.

I cut and pasted this from the first line of the introduction to the site.

[SKC Eric S. Highland]

Chalks one up for Senior Chief Slesh

Using site introductory material to support the point... very nice.

v/r :D

[MKC Art Bailly (Ret)]

After reaading all the post so far My vote is no. CG chiefs.com That is who we are, Coast Guard Chiefs, Past or present.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Hmm, I thought on this for a while.


I vote no.

Are we going to make a Voting thread to actually get a count? Or do we need to?

[BMCM Deane Smith]

I just want to point out that some of you that advocated for officers and retirees to join, are advocating against the Navy Chiefs.

The line doesn't go "Once a Coast Guard Chief, Always a Coast Guard Chief."

So, evidently there is a line to be drawn with everyone. That kind of thinking takes some of the thunder out of the argument that "Once a Chief, Always a Chief" is a well-defined, undeniable precept to the Chief's Corps.

Hmmm....maybe you all aren't as attached to your beliefs as you think you are.

Dennis...I forgot that you liked to do that kind of thing...now I remember.

WHAT STU SAID!!!

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Thankfully when a similiar question was posed last year asking whether or not to vote Coast Guard Chief O's and Retirees to become members of this board, fortunitaly the voting majority favored yes. I and I'm sure retiree Joe; say "THANKYOU."
One of the main concurns was there would be a flood of Chief officers and retirees invading the forum and turning it into another Freds Place[sic].
Well.... end results are; so far with the very limited exception of one or two others, retiree Joe and I have become the only guys to join the club. All those concerns resulted with two additional active members. BTW, I've noticed the past couple of weeks [months] the board activity has really slowed down.
Dennis, you have a viable question whether, or not to allow Navy Chiefs access to OUR board.
IF Admin can truly varify they are Chiefs, I vote "Yes." But, no access behind the door. That, we hold close to us, and invite no one else outside our community.
Chiefs, reading your comments, half are saying "interesting, and maybe..." other half is saying straight yes, or no.
Don't be wishy-washy. Provide you reasoning supporting your vote but Dennis and all of us deserve a real vote. "DEAL or NO DEAL."
I say DEAL, because I think the possible interaction with Navy Chiefs would be interesting and alightening. Are their Chiefs afraid of confrontation, how about their marking system, how Capt's mast results are, Chiefs mast?....
As with Chief W's, O's and Retirees, I don't believe there will be a Navy onslaught.

[OSC Delain Tate]

IF Admin can truly varify they are Chiefs, I vote "Yes." But, no access behind the door. That, we hold close to us, and invite no one else outside our community.


When I first started reading this thread I initially thought No. This is a CG Chiefs Site, but I started thinking...In December last year I spent 2 weeks on a Navy Sub Base. I got to visit with several of the Chiefs both officially and in less than formal settings. It was great hearing the different perspectives from them on everything from personnel issues to navy policy.

It might bring some fresh ideas to the table having them aboard, but like Art stated above...No access to behind the door, that belongs to us.

Maybe, if it was possible, having areas of CG Chiefs only available for the Navy folks to post in, and able to read everything else??? Just a thought.

But I vote "Yes"
-Delain.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

I say who cares? Let them in. If they (or anyone for that matter), abuses the forum, can't a moderator boot them out?

When we get down to it, this is just a forum. Not a mess, not a call, just a forum.

Sometimes we just love to make huge mountains out of those tiniest of mole hills...

R,

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

Dennis, my vote is yes.

1. Yes, they are a Navy Chief. I do think they might be able to give a different perspective. CG specific stuff is not the only thing talked about on these boards.

2. This could be a way to provide a fellow Chief from another service to learn about the CG, the issues we face as leaders in the org, and show the similarities as well.

3. I always thought this web-sites purpose was to greatly expand the Chief Corps networking ability, and I believe this would help in that manner. I think opening to Officers and retirees has been positive, so why not another Chief.

4. If we went to a Navy base for some reason, we would expect as Chiefs that we would be welcome in the CPO club or Mess, and if nothing have some interesting conversation, so what's the difference here.

5. Leadership is discussed on many of the boards on this web-site, and last time I checked that was not a CG specific issue.

Now, if you can verify that the mbr is a Chief, I say "Welcome Aboard". I don't think I would give access to the CPO Mess board though.

Just my .02

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I think the only issue is verification of their CPO-ness for posting purposes. As that is not my area of expertise I'll let Dennis or Stu worry about that.

Access for a Navy Chief? Sure, why not. I don't know what specifics regarding CG policy they could add, but only about half the forums actually discuss that. I'm sure we could get some outside the box perspectives on personnel management issues...

Ken

[BMC John Phillips III]

I could see this site really evolving and taking off if you made it a Senior Enlisted site for all services and had different forums for the respective services and maybe a few free for all areas, but I don't think that's what the site was created for. As and entrepeneur, I would say, yes open it to all E7 and above.

Keep in mind, "entrepenuership" is one of the 28 leadership competencies so is "partnering." This idea clearly falls under the definition for each.

[BMC John Phillips III]

• ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Leaders seek and identify opportunities to develop and market new products and services within or outside of the Coast Guard. Leaders are willing to take risks and initiates actions that involve a deliberate risk to achieve a recognized benefit or advantage.

• PARTNERING

The Coast Guard exists within a broader envelope of partners and stakeholder organizations. Leaders must develop networks and build alliances, engaging in cross-functional activities where it makes sense. Leaders collaborate across boundaries, and find common ground with a widening range of stakeholders at the local and national level, and use their contacts to build and strengthen internal bases of support.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

Folks,

Verification is the easiest of things to do. Armed with a scanner, you can scan your ID card and blacken out important things, like signature, SSAN, etc.

Once a Chief, always a Chief is not a motto, but a standard. I fully expect Dennis would cancel, bar, or do whatever is necessary to ensure things remain to a minor roar and not get too contentious, from any poster.

Opines on specific policies are difficult for those who aren't current. I certainly agree with that as I am not current, but if I were passionate enough about the topic, I can visit uscg.mil and read the appropriate promuglated material on the topic to form a cogent opine.

[CWO Chris Sparkman (BMC)]

I vote yes. Allow the Navy Chief to participate.
CS

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Verifing someones status isn't really an issue. Anyone that wanted to apply could contact an active member and they could vouch for them to one of the board members.
For those of you saying let them in, only keep them from the restricted area......why. Couldn't their imput be useful there as well ?
And to clarify my position.......I'm not afraid of conflict, or worried that there will be a flood gate of Navy people over running the board. I'm also open to hearing the views of others. I just don't see the need. We have Navy and Army E-7 and above in our Mess all the time. I feel the brotherhood. I see the similaities and the differences. I just don't see the need for it here. But I am the voice of one. I yield to the collective will of the group. If the powers that be decide to open up the forum, I will continue to engage people that I disagree with, and support the positions of those that I agree with.

[MKC Harold Whitt]

I say Yes, I feel it would be a benefit, not a hindrance or a stumbling block.

H

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Appears verifying is not an issue, but now the question is whether, or not, provide them access behind the door. I still vote no on that issue.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

When we get down to it, this is just a forum. Not a mess, not a call, just a forum.

I disagree. It may not meet the exact definition of "Mess" or "Chief's Call" but it is something more than just a forum. And, its identity is defined as much by the people that cannot contribute, as those that can.

It may be time to better define what we are attempting to accomplish here. Ideas?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Dennis,

Rather than define what we are trying to do here, let's look at what we are accomplishing here.

The way I see it, this is a forum for us to express our thoughts and opinions out there for the world (Officer/Enlisted) to see. I know people are reading them, I have had Gold Badges, talk to me about one or more of my posts, I have received e-mails from junior enlisted people saying they like what I (we) are saying.

People are reading this, and it shows them that we do care.

{You will have to excuse me, I just finished working out, see physical fitness log, the heart rate is still coming back within norms}

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

On the lines of what Delain said.

If we make an area that only current CG Chiefs can access, so as to maintain that closed door. Then yes.

But I brought that up a while back.. Implementing Groups memberships then blocking certain parts of the board to Group members only.

But that horse was already beat down. I dont want to derail this topic.
http://www.cgchiefs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314&highlight=member+group

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

One thing that came up was the thing about letting the Officers Join. There's a big difference between the O's and the Navy Chief. The O's were Coast Guard Chiefs. We have a Navy Chief participant in the Golden Gate Chapter of the CPOA, but this forum is different. As stated several times in this string, it is advertised as a CG Chiefs Forum. Is there a Navy forum site like ours and have any CG Chiefs been invited to join it? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Navy, my nephew is a retired Navy BMCS, but I feel this site should be kept the way it was originally created to be... a CG Chiefs Forum. We may have some things in common with the Navy, but we are a unique originization, with unique problems (inbreeding was mentioned near the beginning of this thread, I don't play the banjo). :) Also, some of us may do joint exercises with the Navy and may find it necessary to comment about Navy operations, and it might hurt their feelings...... not that it bothers me to be called puddle jumper, knee deeper, puddle pirate.....

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

So you're saying that we are a bunch of uniquely inbreds? Are family tree is a stick. LOL!

[BMC Ralph Williams]

Let em in and welcome aboard.

Ralph

[OSC Thomas Jackson]

lol, actually, Jerald started the whole inbreeding process..... :)

[MSTCM Jerald Motyka]

I di'n't mean anythin' by it, daddy-brother! :D

Now, the more I've thunk about it, as much as I would like to share the wealth, I am going to have to vote no - as others have said - this is "CG"Chief's board, not a "CPO"Board or "E-7+"Board

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Let the Navy Chiefs come on in if their status as a Chief can be verified in some way. Keep the closed door room for CG Chiefs only. My two cents. I'm thinking it's at a point were there needs to be a vote.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

It seems to me that responses are pretty even. As such, I don't see a need to put it to a vote or make a change. We'll approach it later if things change.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

Actually the yes's have it by almost twice, just on a fast count. So if we're not putting it to a vote or making a change, I assume the Navy Chief in question stays out, as well as any others that we would run accross. Not my board, not my descision. Just trying to decide what we accomplished on this thread.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

I'm sure Dennis didn't advertise to that Navy Chief. The Chief found this site, gave it the once over, or thrice over, and decided they want to be part of this.

What attracted that Chief to this site is common with what attracted everyone else to this site. One can look inward to exam themselves and what attracted them here.

I'm here to participate, not in every topic, but in topics I feel my experiences are germane to the topic. I'm sure there are alot of registered members who have posted less than I, but been members here longer than I. Not that I'm special or anything, but one does wonder why some haven't posted much? That question ponders the minds in alot of organizations where membership is much less that those available for membership. It's not a new question; I had a discussion with MCPO Tim L. twenty-one years ago on the lack of participation topic concerning the Kleckner Chapter of the CPOA.

Everyone's vision is different. Dennis had his vision on the direction, others gave Dennis their vision, and the site was created. Now the vision was modified to include retired CPOs and former CPOs.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

I'm still in the No Column here just as I was with the O's and Retirees (sorry, Joe & LT, though your contributions have been very meaningful to the discussions)

I would be willing to come off that position slightly by saying OK but with the caveat that they be at a Joint CG/Navy Command where their views and input will be relevent.

Thoughts?

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

"I would be willing to come off that position slightly by saying OK but with the caveat that they be at a Joint CG/Navy Command where their views and input will be relevent."

Steve, not disagreeing with you, but have you ever read any books on leadership, written by anyone other than a CG Chief?

I guess my view is that anyone in the same capacity(at a minimum) as I am in, dealing with similar issues (specifically people) as I am in, have a great possibility of having something relevent to say. I look to many people, from many different walks of life for my guidence.

To stay with a Navy theme. "it's pretty hard to drive a submarine when you isolate yourself and look only through the periscope. But if you look through that same periscope and listen to everyone that surrounds you, it gets much easier. Bottom line, EVERYONE has something relevent to add to various topics.

But this is just my opinion. I'm just glad we all have this site to go to to be able to give our views and opinions. :)

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Actually the yes's have it by almost twice, just on a fast count. So if we're not putting it to a vote or making a change, I assume the Navy Chief in question stays out, as well as any others that we would run accross. Not my board, not my descision. Just trying to decide what we accomplished on this thread.

Unless there is an actual vote, we have accomplished nothing with this thread.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Except get spooled-up about it. All around good discussion and input on views. But... Dennis and the board, I feel [we] shouldn't let this lie around without final results one-way or another.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

MC, you are correct. That's the same as I was refering to. lots of good discussion, but we accomplished nothing. But hell, converstion is always good.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Brett,

I recently read "Ask the Chief" written by a former Navy/CG RM1 who interviewed many Navy Chiefs on their leadership styles, etc. A very fascinating book.

That said, my point is that I would like to see this as a CG site, and the Navy -- CG Culture have unique aspects about them that set us apart.

The leadership topics and issues are relevent to both.

By opening it up to USN CPOs at Joint Commands, they would already have exposure to our world and could provide valuable input to our discussions.

If we opened up to USN CPOs do you really want to discuss their new uniforms for E1-E6 and the new digital cammo pattern utility uniform? While it is important to them, I really don't care, and don't want to discuss it.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

If certain parts of this forum were closed then this would not be a problem.

[DCCS Brett Wickett]

Hey Steve, I read the same book. Very good.......

Anyway, I agree with you on some things, as for the uniform issues....LOL, as a matter of fact it might be interestign to find out how they managed to have blouses made without bottom pockets (so they can wear them untucked) but then have the ability to tuck them in if needed for ops purposes. They got it right, we didn't. ....LOL

More importantly to me though is I like to learn from everyone. But I did say that I would like to keep the secret door closed to all but CG Chiefs's.
Good conversation none the less.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

Master Chief Harold- Such negativity! The discussion itself is important. And, maintaing the status quo is as much an action as changing the policy.

All- The problem with voting is that we won't get a lot of participation. We learned that awhile ago. And, I never really wanted to bring the topic up for a vote. I simply wanted to see what people thought about it.

In regards to allowing membership, but not allowing access to the closed forum-- I just don't like that idea. It sounds like we'd be developing a heirarchy of Chiefs (those that we completely trust and value their opinions, and those that we don't). That is not what my idea of a Chief is all about.

I'm going to start a separate thread to discuss how this board should be run. I don't want to make those decisions. I'm about to retire, my focus will be elsewhere, and we need to begin running this thing as a community effort. Stand by.

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Master Chief Harold- Such negativity! The discussion itself is important. And, maintaing the status quo is as much an action as changing the policy.

All- The problem with voting is that we won't get a lot of participation. We learned that awhile ago. And, I never really wanted to bring the topic up for a vote. I simply wanted to see what people thought about it.

In regards to allowing membership, but not allowing access to the closed forum-- I just don't like that idea. It sounds like we'd be developing a heirarchy of Chiefs (those that we completely trust and value their opinions, and those that we don't). That is not what my idea of a Chief is all about.

I'm going to start a separate thread to discuss how this board should be run. I don't want to make those decisions. I'm about to retire, my focus will be elsewhere, and we need to begin running this thing as a community effort. Stand by.

Well, if I sound negative, it is because this topic went back and forth, with no clear idea of what it was accomplishing. There were lots of comments that included what I would take as votes. The other time I saw a vote thread, the issue was decided. It took a while, but it was decided.

The Navy Chief in question (or anyone else for that matter) will be able to read everyone's comments as the "forum" is open for all to read. I say put it to a vote. Use the Poll thread, whatever. If it was already decide when the thread was started, than is anyone's comments going to change your mind?

I think sometimes people just post because they like to hear themselves type.

I guess I could start a poll thread, but will the votes be honored. I'm just a user here like most others and not a moderator or admin.

I just think TPTB think this is something more then I think it is. My first post on this subject says what I consider this site. It is very useful site and I enjoy the information exchange that takes place here.

R,
The Negative one...

[ETCM Joseph Harold]

Master Chief Harold- Such negativity!.

Actually, I don’t consider this negativity at all. It is my opinion and I would also say it is criticism. You can agree with it, disagree with it or ignore it. Those are not the only options, but just three that came to mind. That is the beauty of our free country.

...

[BMCS Dennis Endicott (Ret)]

I think sometimes people just post because they like to hear themselves type.

That generally implies the orginator (me) doesn't really have anything pertinent to say. I feel slighted.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Dennis,
It appears your original quaestion was really no more then to put out feelers to see what we thought of the idea. You should know better than that. If your question was asked in-earnest, please don't depart saying "you're too busy getting ready for retirement."
So am I, but I still have time to say my vote.

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

If we opened up to USN CPOs do you really want to discuss their new uniforms for E1-E6 and the new digital cammo pattern utility uniform? While it is important to them, I really don't care, and don't want to discuss it.

Steve,

The beauty of these forums is no one's arm is twisted till they post.

Everyone chooses which topic they lend their experiences and thoughts. I'm not obligated, or at least I didn't read that in any terms of service, to post x number of times in a month, or post with any regularity to maintain good standing in this forum.

Look how many PCPO's make their obligatory post and then go away. Those who thought that it's good to make the PCPO post had a good idea to introduce them to these forums, but, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink..

Those that post are akin to those that vote. You have to want to.

[AMTCM John Long]

I would/will vote no.

No disrespect to any folks asking....past, present and future.

I default to my rational for my vote of "NO" on the previous "call to vote" topic.

I go back to the original vision of the site when Dennis started it. In this particular situation, it is a CG site, created by a Coastie.

Call me a one-track, CG tradionalist.

Now I'll crawl back under the bridge..............John :cool:

[BMCM Deane Smith]

So, where are we on this issue? Are we allowing the Navy Chief or not?

[BMC Ken Gouge]

I honestly don't think it matters. If a Chief has something to say, they usually find a way. Whether they be Navy or CG. If they need an answer, the same applies. If this site is another tool for someone to use toward that end...

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Senior Chief Carleton [or anyone] where can I purchase a copy of the book "Ask the Chief"
Is it available at local book stores, or special order?
Thanks for the help.

[PACS Steve Carleton]

EL TEE,

I got my copy at a Command Chiefs Conference and they give them out at the Command Chief School up at New London.

Amazon.com Ask the Chief: Backbone of the Navy (Hardcover)
by J. F. Leahy
List Price: $28.95
Price: $18.24 You Save: $10.71 (36%)
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.

[LT Arthur Nelson (MKC) (Ret)]

Thanks SeenYour.

Sounds like a great book.