new attacks

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

I originally put this under Site News, but no one can reply to the thread in that forum and I think that it bears repeating.

There is a conversation going on over at that other site which brings us under attack again. Just to clear a couple of things up.

This site is open to retirees. You just have to contact a Member of the site to verify who you are. If you feel as though being asked to verify who you are to out of line, continue posting under a screen name in other forums.

This site is not struggling to keep 500 members. We delete membership all the time. Our numbers reflect the members who are active. If you stop logging into the site, your membership will be canceled. We don't need numbers, we're looking at providing a service with our discussions.

This site is for CG Chiefs. There are about 4000 active duty Chiefs in the CG. Would I like our active membership be be higher, yes I would. Would I trade higher numbers for an inaccurate representation of our strength, No Thank You.

For those people out there that would rather be posting behind a screen name,....what are you complaining about ? Other avenues will always be open to you. If you want to let people know who you are and what you stand for, follow the rules, the instructions are simple. If you'd rather talk about the days of old and how hard you had it, you're better off staying where you are.
If our ways of doing business don't mean anything, why are you trying to join us in the first place. And when you're quoting history, try and keep your facts straight. Your friend of 20+ years and the judge at your CCTI is the very person that that was instumental in changing the CCTI into the ritual you now call meaniless. If you want to mock us, mock us. But at least make some attempt at doing it with some semblence of accuracy.

And "nobodyaskedmebut", my name is BMCM Stuart S. Slesh. I when thru my CCTI in March 1999. It might not mean anything to you, but it meant an awful lot to me. This site might not mean anything to you, but it means an awful lot to me. You want to give me the names of two Master Chiefs that you say that you knew, I'll give you mine. Now you have three. You know who I am, but I still I don't know who you are. I do know that you managed to insult ever member of this board, and every Chief that has been initiated in the past decade or so. I guess the CCTI really has changed in all those years, or the things that you were supposed to have learned when you went through yours, didn't really take. And Nobody asked me but, you're exactly the kind of poster that the no votes were warning me about when we opened up our membership options to other than Active Duty Chiefs............ When they're right, they're right.........

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

:rolleyes:

I don't understand what is so difficult. You contact an AD Chief, submit info and get membership on the board. AD Chiefs post on the other site everyday, so you think they could find at least one. I don't know Stu, maybe there is to many steps :confused:

I for one am very happy the way this board is run. I know some would disagree, but I do see this as a "mess" at times. Refering back to my comments about attending meetings in the mess, the mess I am a mbr of is 400 miles away and I have no other Chiefs in the area. Other than calling Chiefs to talk (the calls to Burt in Kodiak get a little expensive) this provides me an arena to use as a sounding board, or just to discuss issues with my peers. I have said before that networking is one of our best tools, and this site takes it to a whole new level.

When the retiree subject came up before I voted to allow them membership, and I still feel this way. They still have much to offer in knowledge and experience, even if they are not working in the current CG. One of the things I don't like about the other site is when a topic is started the thread is only about 20% of the original topic, and about 80% BS with people trying to start fights from behind different identities. I want to know who I'm talking to, I like talking to retirees and getting their point of view, but I don't want to have to surf through a whole bunch of NTAC's to do it. You're right Stu, this board has quality over quantity, and that is fine with me.

One thing I find extremely troubling though is that some of these people are very quick to sling mud at Chiefs, or the "mess" in a public forum just because they do not agree, or understand. When I went through initiation the most important lesson I learned was "Unity", and that comes before all else, period! I guess some didn't learn as much at CCTI as they thought :(

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

I checked out that guys profile. How can one list a ribbon that he has earned, when it didn't come into effect 10 years after he retired? :confused: Or did I look at the wrong profile?

JP, thanks for providing the link, I don't go to that site, too much drama.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

Saw it, sounds like someone is pissed because they were asked for references and they didn't pan out or vouch for them or whatever. They didn't pan out not "OUR" problem at OUR LITTLE SITE.
I'm ok with what we have. They can keep the numbers.
I go there sometimes and see a lot of high school BS I'll read the posts get a chuckle. A lot of internet drama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also agree, you say something I don't agree with here, I know who I'm arguing with. I like it that way. You know how it is, some people are never happy unless they are trying to create hate and discontent.

My advice for the member who said he had 2 retired Chief's as references would be to call those 2 Chief's and find out what happened.

Todd

[BMCS Dave Considine]

If you look at the other threads on the "other site" you'll notice that I will no longer post there. The moderators and "experienced members" have created the rift that is rapidly developing. They seem to me to have missed the core reality that the Coast Guard has changed with the rest of society, we have adapted to the world's changing attitudes and the personalities and mindsets of our junior members. This is a necessity! Changing with the times is what has kept the Coast Guard as the world's leading maritime response agency. I believe Time magazine just honored us as "the little agency that could." The Coast Guard I witnessed 15 years ago as a seaman on the deck of a 210' is so far away from the Coast Guard I am so proud to look out onto today it makes my head spin. Don't get me wrong, the CG was great then, and it is even greater today. Personally I like this "little site" filled with the members of the mess that are in the trenches everyday with the people that are at the deck plate doing the King's work. So don't change that, if retiree's want to join and post, that's fine - I just ask them to understand that Coast Guard is constantly evolving to keep up with the rest of the world, and I hope they take that to heart. I respect the opinions of many retired member's, and keep open lines of dialogue with many. It'll never be the Coast Guard it was 15 years ago, or even last week for that matter, and although we always learn from the past we must prepare for the future.

Altus Tendo - I reach higher

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

I think you guys are looking at this all wrong. This forum needs as much exposure as it can generate. Everytime someone on Fred's Place complains about us, they do two things; 1) they reveal that fact that they read this forum, and 2) they get other people to read the forum just to see what is going on.

If that fella on Fred's Place provided a reference that will vouch for him, let's get him registered! I'd love to debate with another retiree here! I suspect, though, that he really isn't interested in posting here.

[AMTCM John Long]

I read (and responded to) the thread on Military Forums. I don't know all the "behind the scenes" details that started the discussion.

Having said that, I don't like to see all the us vs them stuff. As I said on MF, each site has it's own way of doing things. There is something for everyone on both, just depends on what you're looking for.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

The problem is that he didn't get two Members to vouch for him. He gave the names of two retired Master Chiefs who aren't members of this site. If he wanted to become a member the instruction are simple. Get a member to vouch for you. That's on the person wanting to register. I don't have the means or inclination to track down his friends to verify that he is who he says he is.
I don't have a problem with the guy re-applying. But I don't know who he is. I don't approve membership to people who aren't using a uscg.mil e-mail unless I'm given a heads up from a Member prior to the person registering. We don't take anyone at face value. That's clear on the disclaimor on the front page.
I was one of the strongest advocates for allowing retired CHIEFS to post in the first place. But I want to know that you are in fact a retired CHIEF first. We have retirees who post here. We have people who are now Warrants or Officers who post here. If you are a Chief...... and Once a Chief, Always a Chief...is still part of my vocabulary, you are welcome here. I just want to know before I approve your membership.

Tim Hecht, you want to have access and debate me over here......

4. If you are a retiree, you must have a current member vouch for your identity.

Neither person that you mentioned vouched for you. Neither person is a member of this board.

Contact me, I'll find a way to verify who you are. I have no fear of what you would have to say. I'm not nearly as childish as you people have painted me. And when we talk about condeming people we've never met, I limit myself to you, Tim, based on your comments. Now can we try to be adults ?

[BMC John Phillips III]

but I don't want to have to surf through a whole bunch of NTAC's to do it.(

Excellent use of an acronym in a sentence!

Dave, Michael, I went a really long time without even surfing that site much less posting. I have to admit when I read it, I was tempted to post a reply, but I decided to take the high road and let the moderators here handle it as they see fit. Obviously there was a one-sided view posted there by someone that is disgruntled. I know what was being said there holds no water here.

This is a great site and like Ian said, I too consider it a "Mess" of sorts and the attendance here is voluntary. So we are all here because we want to be and we genuinely care about the CG and Chiefs Corps. I doubt any of us are here looking for attention or something to piss and moan about (except for maybe Jerald)

just kidding Jerald I promise! :D

Edited to add, after some deliberation, I decided to add my 2 cents to the other site. I tried to be as clear, realistic and respectable as possible.

[MSTCS Jerald P. Motyka]

JPIII, no offense taken! :p

I, too, take this as a true Mess. We may piss and moan from time to time, but we DO deal with the day to day crap that makes life hell for both us AND our people. Sure, from time to time we ruffle feathers, but we do that in real Messes also. Even when Master Chief Slesh and I get ticked at each other, we end up deciding that its better to agree that we disagree and we drive on.

If I were to find that he had problems - I would do whatever I could to help him out - and I think he would do the same for me.

Just like a real Mess. How is this so hard to deal with?

And I also agree that the validation process for the boards is good. Keep it up!

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

And we have made a difference, just like a real Mess. We have helped people with their decisions to go throught the CCTI. Assisted people with dealing with situations at their unit or in their local Mess. Discussed problems with the MCPO-CG's website, and were honored by a visit from the same expressing his appreciation and support. We've brought things to light that outlying Chiefs were unaware of. And we've voted on things that have made changes, both in this forum and in the service, however coincidental.
And as this is an open forum, who knows who is reading this, or how many changes are still to come.
We bring things to light. We inform those within earshot. We enlighten those who read what we have to say. We provide an outlet, a service.
We expand our network, and our net worth, just like a real Mess.

The validation process was voted on by the Members of this forum, just like a real Mess. The vote was counted and action was taken. I won't see what we've done cheapened by someone on the outside.

And Jerald, I'll always have your back.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Hold on one minute.

First, I gave the owner of this site a link to my DD-2(CG) which was my ticket into this site. If you want to stretch that as someone "vouching" for me you can. That is NOT how I see it.

Stop this silly "Someone on Active Duty" vouching for a retiree.

If the owner of this site state's he vouched for me, he can drop my name from the roles immediately. If he state's he viewed my DD-2(CG) and it showed I was a CPO ... then fine.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Joe, isn't that pretty much the same thing?

Vouch: a : PROVE, SUBSTANTIATE b : to verify (a business transaction) by examining documentary evidence
intransitive verb

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, that is someone vouching for you. Everyone who joins this site is verified by some means. We use people's global accounts to show that they are CPOs. We check those that are signing on as Warrants or Officers. We have a member "vouch" for retirees. I don't see how it's insulting.

Say someone applies for membership., and we just give it. How are we supposed to know they are who they say they are ? Check the bottom of the page for the name of the newest member sometime. We've had non-rates apply. We have gotten applications from corporate accounts and yes, porn sites. We have four people who can verify someones e-mail account and approve membership. The people that don't want to follow the rules,......shouldn't join.

When you gave someone (a member) a link to your DD-214, they were able to verify that you were who you said you were. The rest of us now know that your posts come from you.

I'm not bashing that other site, but they certainly are bashing me. They're making cute little slogans with my family name. They have that name because I gave it to them. My name is on everything that I post. And yes, my identity was verified before I was allowed to post on this site.
They are taking pieces of what I said and taking them out of context, and I'm the one being called disrespectful or childish. They're saying that their not bashing our "little" site, but that's not the way I see it. They can back peddle all they want, I know what I read, and I know what I wrote. Just as I know that though the CCTI has changed alot over the years, the most recent changes, the ones that we are using today, were penned by ........never mind, they're not listening anyway.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

Why are we even discussing this? If you want to post here follow the rules. I think we are giving whoever more credability then they probability deserve.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Mark, as stated by Dennis, everytime they mention us on another site, it brings more attention to what we do. They keep saying that we don't allow retirees or Warrants to join, I feel as though I need to keep setting the record straight.
Everytime I hear someone saying that they've done everything that they were required to do, I can't help but point out that they skipped the only requirement we have.
Since this thread started we've had another Retiree and someone currently wearing LT apply for membership. We've also had a PO1 who was denied access.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Say someone applies for membership., and we just give it. How are we supposed to know they are who they say they are ?


This is why I choose to go "anonymous" on that other site. I can put my full name rank and unit there and any clown can go there and get my information. Here my name is verified and people know that it is me posting it. I have never declined anyone there a request to my identity. But I am not leaving it out there for anyone to grab.

[BMC Mark C. Lewis]

MC
I think you may have missed my point. If people are unhappy with this site and bad mouth it, so be it. I think we do an injustice to this site by responding to muckrakers.

As far as the retiree and the LT. I did they hear about us. I would hope the LT heared it from us and the retiree who knows. If they heard it from Fred's Place and decided to check it out great.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

I would like to toss up another possible voucher.

Proof of active membership in the CPOA. We can always verify that. The CPOA main office and forward a members information at that members request. It would not have to be anything personal, just a "Yes, this person has an active membership in the CPOA and was in from _____ to ____. I'm sure that would not be a problem.



What do you all think?

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

First off ...

I gave the forum owner ... the link. It's their business to do the "vouching" if you must use that phrase. I don't think he farmed that out to someone else.

I didn't ask any member to verify my credentials.

I agree, using the GAL is easiest for the active duty types and maybe even the reserve types.

I just get upset at using "any member to vouch for you". Moderators and owners, I have no problems with providing credentials ... it's part of their responsibility. After all, not "any member" vouches for someone in the GAL.

I know I'm parcing the language, but that's my interpetation.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, we could think of it as any member saying "yeah the person requesting membership is really the person requesting it" but someone is still attesting to that. And your case was different. But as it stands now there are four people who have administrative authority. They go in to check the e-mail addresses of the people awaiting moderation.

Ronald we would still need to know that the person requesting was the person who has the membership to the CPOA and not some sort of identity theft.

Mark, I'll take the hit on that one. I can't let things go. I can't let the muckrakers go unchecked. I never could. Dennis even started a thread about how I always have to have the last word. I don't have as much of a problem with people bad mouthing me as I have with them bad mouthing this site. They're saying we don't allow certain people, when we clearly do. I just can't let that go........ didn't I already say that ? Yeah, I can't let things go.

There are current members of this board who have been denied membership the first time they applied. Most of them because they tried to create the account from home. Active Duty Chiefs who were denied access because I couldn't verify who they were. The ones who reapplied from their global were verified and approved. That's the way I've been doing this since I was given administrative ability. I've changed other people's screen names because they didn't meet the criteria listed on that front page. One complaint to date.

[SKC Ronald Brumble]

Good point, and call Me Ron please. "Only my mama calls me Ronald" :D

Joe, you still provided proof, maybe a different way but still. :p




Denis makes a great point, the more they talk smack, the more plublicity we get here. So let them complain, if they are unwilling to do something so simple to get access then:
1) They pissed off the few Chief friends they had and cant get vouched for. :rolleyes:
2) Don't really want to do anything and want it handed to them. :D
3) Do we really care what they have to say?

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

I sent Tim an email telling him how I enrolled as a member here and I will post the same information on Military.com ... hopefully tomorrow.

I thought this BS was done with the last time I posted on military.com on how to become a member, but threads get culled there on a 60-90 day basis, I don't remember what the auto deletion is set at.

That thread will be closed after I make the posting.

In this day and age, there are various ways to show credentials. I'd make sure to advice blackening out any information that would assist in identity theft.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Dennis even started a thread about how I always have to have the last word.

If I remember correctly, you were the last one to post on that thread :p I will go check.

Joe, not to beat a dead horse but the people that get there name listed in the GAL have to have a command endorsement on their AIS form before they can get an email address. As per the definition, as an OIC I have vouched for 4 of my new people already. They are now in the global. It almost seems to me that you don't want it to look like you had to ask someone to join. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that you are here and I wish there were more AD Chiefs like you that cared to come and share their input and experiences. I also appreciate you going to military.com and trying to clear the air, they might actually start getting it considering that you are one of the few retired members of the board.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Actually I never posted on that thread. The original post seemed to me as an invitation for me not to.....

[BMC John Phillips III]

Ok, I was just making up the part about remembering you posting last, but it was meant as a joke anyway.

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

This thread and the one on military.com both relate to one concept ...

Effective communication is when the listener understands the message.

Like truegrit over there stated ... he blanked out his SSAN and obtained membership here. I blanked out my signature and SSAN.

No one should have a problem providing links or the actual image of their credentals in an email. I like the club analogy I use, for it is the easiest to understand.

I see from the thread at military.com Stu will be busy.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Don't feel bad for me Joe, think of poor Deane,...... he is underway and has to try and catch up with everything that has been said in the past couple of days.

And I'm with you on the effective communications issue. I still say that one of the problems with the written word is that sometimes some of us still read what we want to read instead of what's written. But I also suffer from hearing what I want to hear instead of what was actually said. One of the benifits is that you can always refer back to what you actually wrote.

[FSC Charles Ewing, Jr]

Site under attack/ new attacks:
What , is Hazzbella shooting more missles?? Call a cease fire!
All the trash talking on Military.com actually did bring me here.
I was invited by Dennis a year or two ago, but never followed through. Thats my bad, as I suck at keeping in touch. Im now in therepy to overcome my fear of keeping friends (lol).
Anyways, I bet the registration DOUBLES here because of this controversy!
JR ( I am no spelling bee winner) Ewing :cool:

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

Welcome aboard JR. It's nice seeing another JR here and an FSC at that. (Although I spell mine out as Jayare.)

Jayare

[SKC Eric S. Highland]

Wow.. it is all I can do to keep up with this place.. I don't think I've used Fred's place in awhile now..

I don't even have a clue as to what controversy is going on.. I saw "new attacks" and I turned on the news before I began to read the thread... ~smirks~

Well my cover is off to those that can juggle that many boards...

v/r

[CWO Larry Philipp (ETC)]

Good morning Honorable Chiefs, Senior Chiefs, and Master Chiefs, :cool:

My sincere thanks to Master Chief Slesh for validating my request for membership!

I'm kind of glad things boiled up again on Military.com, as it reminded me to get it in gear and get over here.

By way of introduction, I was initiated Chief (STC) Jan. 13, 1987 at Coast Guard Island and joined the Golden Gate Chapter of the CPOA. A year later I was in Boston awaiting Chase/Hamilton, and got involved with the Boston Chapter, and enjoyed it immensely until getting underway with the rowdy, great Mess on Chase/Hamilton for the next 38 months. I then went to ACET for two years, and was forced to choose a different rate as 1993 dawned. I chose ETC. Went off to learn/teach crypto in Norfolk, and after 13 mo., HQ moved my billet (and me!) to FTG GTMO to be a shiprider. Became part of the amazing Gold Hill Bandits Mess. After the Navy moved the command lock, stock, and barrel to Mayport, I threw my hat in the Warrant ring and got picked up for my next ride on Rush in 1996. Met some fine Chiefs on Rush, who made a big difference in my transition--they constantly encouraged and cajoled me, even when I went through a period of self-doubt on why I had ever left the Mess. My last tour prior to retiring was Polar Sea, and again, the Chiefs' Mess really helped make that tour great. The give and take, witty repartee, and willingness to say it like it was (and is) was priceless.

Now I'm retired a year after 26 in (and 11 at sea), and working and enjoying life as an independent contractor doing primarily courier work, and setting up my own business.

A lot of thanks and hello to the Chiefs on here whose names I recognize, and who I really enjoyed serving with, especially Senior Chief Bob Kelley--always willing to speak his mind without checking to see who was present! ;)

I hope I can bring something to the Mess in the way of sea stories, experience, and a good laugh now and again. Thank you for opening the door when I knocked!

Larry

[SKC Eric S. Highland]

Welcome Larry.. good to have you!

I served on Polar Star from 94-97 two Deep Freeze and three Arctic trips... but I was not in the Mess at the time.. hehehehe..

Anyhow good to see a Polar Class Sailor onboard.

v/r

[BMC John Phillips III]

Welcome aboard CWO Philipp, great last name by the way, although I'd go with an extra l as opposed to p ;)

[S/A Gerald Griner (PSC)]

Greetings, first post.

I am a Mod at "that other site" and I just wanted to let you know there is a Mod-only board called the "Command Post" were the Mods go to piss and moan, and I'll tell you this: The CG Boards are some of the most benign boards on that "other site".

Anyways, I just wanted to say Hi, especially to Mike S. How's E-City treating you? AWESOME Harvick pics.

Have a Great CG Day!

[MSTC Michael Schmidtke]

Welcome Gerry, E-City is great. If you want to see another great photo, go to CoastGuardRacing and pull up the shot of Harvick crossing the finish line at Martinsville. I'm the guy looking the other way, (between the guy in yellow and the girl in red) right near the start finish line in the white shirt.

And welcome to you CWO Philipp. We look forward to your insight.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Not so concerned about the numbers going up as I am about participation going up. Hopefully new blood will spark new conversation even in old threads.

And I wouldn't count on numbers doubling, or even going up that much. Dennis had started a couple of threads on other sites and those that want to join will. Advertisement is good and all, but you still have to have a product that someonme is willing to buy. I still think that if members made their local Messes aware of the site, we would see an increase in membership.
Again, I'm more concerned with hearing the voices, rather than reading the names........

[AMTCM John Long]

I just had lunch with MC Bowen. He does read the boards to see what is being discussed amongst the Chiefs. We did touch base on this topic.

It's good to see some new folks signing up. Welcome aboard to all.

John

[BMCS Dave Considine]

We just had a Consolidated Chief's Call hosted by my unit, had 30 or so Chiefs and let everyone know about the Unvarnished Truth. Would rather get the publicity that way than "the other way".

Dave

[BMCS Burt Ford]

I missed all this in 5 days. Deane is in for a treat.

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

I welcome the new members from that other site too. I don't get over there much any more since comming to this site a year ago. There is no back stabbing going on over here and you know who you are talking to/with here because we don't hide behind the name of "this member" or any of those other names they use over there.

Jayare

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

I like this board much better. The person your are talking with or if you just read the post's here is in fact a Chief or was one at one point, not a civilian who get's a screen name and throws in BS just to stir the pot.

I did register many years ago and lost my sign on info tried to register again and no matter how many times I tried to reregister I couldn't sign on, so I just said to he!! with it and since being directed to this board I have no desire to go back there to try.

On a totally different topic, MKC,Jo Ledbetter, Now MKCS is the one who turned me on to our "little website" and I can't thank her enough. This is probably one of the best networking tools we have as Chief's, IMO. Especially since we don't always get the opportunity to gather the masses. I would've never been able to get some of the insight I have here in the traditional way. I'm not saying this has replaced the face to face but this certianly makes getting help and discussing matters with different messes easier.

By the way MKCS Ledbetter departed yesterday for Seattle, She will be going to the Mellon, and her daughter will be joining the Marine Corps and leaving for B/C in Oct. So if any of you Seattle Chiefs see her give her a big welcome she is an awesome person. There are rumors the she is the first MKCS female???????????? anyone

That last paragraph would've probably been better on a different thread but since I'm already on this one............

Todd

[SKC Eric S. Highland]

Contact the RFMC I'm sure they have that data.

v/r

SKC

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Don't feel bad for me Joe, think of poor Deane,...... he is underway and has to try and catch up with everything that has been said in the past couple of days.

It's impossible to catch up with this one. I'm just amazed at some of the childish behavior between this thread (including the Fred's Place thread) and the person who forwarded Jim's comments to the AO.

It's really quite comical.