What are we trying to accomplish with this board?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

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

"You are completely accountable for your comments and discussions. This is as it should be. We are Chiefs, and as such, are responsible to provide the unvarnished truth, no matter how unflattering."

"Discuss leadership concepts and their application. Explore new ideas and challenge old beliefs."

These are quotes pulled from the web site and this forum. Most of them have been in place since the site's inception. Since, no one has challenged their relevence, I assume that we agree they are important tenants to our discussions.

So...

Master Chief Wells has sparked a tremendous amount of debate by challenging assumptions. That's what he's supposed to do. Many of us have answered his challenges in an equally enthusiastic manner. That's what we're supposed to do.

However...

The debate has degenerated into name-calling, insults, and insinuations. We've made accusations running the gamut from bad manners to racism. We're not acting very Chiefly. I am ashamed to have non-Chiefs read this discussions. I've never been in any Chief's Mess where where such disrespect and/or disregard was shown for each other.

We need to find a way to resolve this problem.

[MKC Craig Thorngren (Ret)]

Dennis,
I feel part of the problem is the second tenant "You are completely accountable for your comments and discussions. Different people here are held to a different level of accountability. I couldn't (and shouldn't) get away with some of the remarks made in some of the threads. I'll use you as an example. As a retired member if you made diparaging remarks about an officer it's usually no big deal (I know they could recall you to active duty and all, but really, you and I know it's not going to happen). If I on the other hand made a remark about a specific officer, I could easily find myself standing in front of the green table.
It all comes down to your last paragraph...Respect...

Craig

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

Different people here are held to a different level of accountability.

Craig,

Everyone is held to the same level of accountability. That is the one that can be filed in a court of law.

Some, and I question their leadership, will call active duty members to task for expressing an idea here, and that they should, if you commit libel. That same standard applies to me. You may suffer Non-Judicial Punishment but I would suffer Judicial Punishment in a libel situation. From that prospective, you have the better deal. Your deal is sour due to the rules of the game for Non-Judicial Punishments.

That sourness comes from those that interpet your message improperly. I don't know how many times people only use the contemporary usage of a word and proclaim that's the intent of the messenger. It rarely works that way during civil intercourse, especially with people of varying education levels. As a lowly high school graduate, I'm close to the lower spectrum, as I know few sesquipedalian words to flower my comments.

People are quick to say these discussions have reached their nadir, I disagree. These forums will be invigorated with the discussions working towards the zenith when the expression of ideas flows freely. Popularity doesn't make things correct.

I had a discussion with a PO2 once concerning something I've noticed on my unit and asked him if he seen the same. His reply was, it was like that on all the stations I was assigned. I asked him ... does that make it a non-existant problem, just because it's on every one of that type unit? Nope. It means alot haven't recognized it as a problem. If I had to go with popular opinion, the problem didn't exist.

It's not always poplular taking the contrary view. As Chief's, the senior officers expect a contrary view to strengthen the senior's new policy. Giving them anything less is doing them a dis-service. Naturally the senior has the full force of the UCMJ behind them and they could play that hammer by saying ... do it because I said so, and all would follow any legitimate order. Who decides if it's legitimate? The leader or the follower? The follower makes a choice ... the leader makes a choice. A courts martial could decide, along with the court of public opinion.

It is not a requirement for anyone, other than moderators, to read every word on every thread in any forum. Those that disgust you, and if you engage them, deserve the courtsey of reading every word. I've read lots of words from people who I wouldn't give the time of day, but I was moderating and they deserved reading, it mattered not whether I agreed or disagreed with the posts.

If you truely want a free flow of idea's, it might take some, even Bill Wells, to do more inquiry. It might take some, even Bill Wells, to answer the inquiries from their fellow Chiefs.

What does everyone want from these boards? I doubt anyone want's to sit around, hold hands, and sing kumbaya. I've heard the rumors that one CG leadership course did something similiar to that ... sit around, hold hands, and share the experience ... but that was pre-1975. :)

It that the intent of these forums ... sit around, hold hands and share the experience? I hope not.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Master Chief Wells has sparked a tremendous amount of debate by challenging assumptions. That's what he's supposed to do. Many of us have answered his challenges in an equally enthusiastic manner. That's what we're supposed to do.

BMCS, with all due respect, it's not what Bill is doing as much as it is how he's doing it. You yourself have already had to call him out on deliberately posting what he claims to know as an "untruth." I don't recall you ever doing that since the inception of this board.

Bill's posts are riddle with negativity, snide comments, condescention and irresponsible quotes. I for one did not see the (racial) remarks he made the first time, but I agree with BMCM, quoting someone else or not the remarks were TOTALLY inappropriate for the discussion and TOTALLY irrelavent to the topic of discussion. If anything they were completely contrary to the topic of discussion. I do not believe in teaching lessons by demonstrating the negative example of behavior (in other words, this is exactly what you shouldn't do).

At this point, I feel somewhat embarrassed to have continued this debate with him, however as I said before, I cannot stand idly by and let him posts these untruths and irresponsible remarks.

If Bill were to actually offer up his opinion in an even halfway respectful manner and he were to accept that others would disagree with him without disrespecting them that would be one thing. To date, that has not happened. I would not be surprised that by the time I submit this message if he has not offered up another negative comment that has little to do with the topic of discussion. I am 100% certain that if you were to put it to a poll, the vote would be 99% for and 1% against banning him from this site.

I really don't want to recommend that. What I would like to see is Bill exercise a little maturity and discipline (maybe even a glimmer of what we describe as our Core Values) in his posts. I would also like to see him post one message that did have a negative connotation to it.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

This isn't just about Master Chief Wells. No one who engaged those debates did so professionally (myself included). We need to find a way to have these discussions without degrading ourselves and our profession.

[BMC John Phillips III]

BMCS, we have disagreed in the past and in each case (as my memory serves me) we both did so with mutual respect and exercised professionalism in doing so. So again, I will disagree with you here. To illustrate my point I am going to provide you with my reasoning for the "other" thread being unprofessional at times. The reason is Bill attacked something that we are "passionate" about our Core Values.

By definition, passion means: the emotions as distinguished from reason b: intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction c: an outbreak of anger 5 a: ardent affection : love b: a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object, or concept.

I underlined all the aspects of the definitions that have led us good Chiefs down the bad road of unprofessional behavior.

I hope you take this post in the respectful manner in which I wished to present it.

v/r,

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Craig,

I agree. I hold myself accountable for every remark I make. I will also take the acclaim. It works both ways.

The discussion group will make little impact. It is after all the internet. If you want to make an impact put in print.

I wrote a commentary piece that was published in Naval Institute's Proceeding arguing the inappropriateness of naming the ice breaker for Healy because of his violation of the core values albeit a hundred years since. This was in print for the world to see and there were comments about it.

This is what this board should be about. Why should one person be honored for violating the core values and another punished? The chiefs should have some opinion about this and this is the place to do this sort of thing.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Don't bring the core values debate to this thread, Bill. This is about how we are going to have these conversations with respect and regard for each other.

[BMCS Jim Madsen]

Very good question Dennis. When Deane first told me about this site, I found it a great place to network with fellow Chiefs. To discuss relavent topics and share ideas. This was a place where we could talk about things that we would like to see improved or changed. It was always (well, almost always) professional. It was a place where junior folks could be a "fly on the wall" of a Chief's Mess and see how we interact. There were good, and sometimes heated debates about the CPO Academy, CCTI etc. A couple of times there were some inappropriate comments made, or at least comments that were construed as inappropritate and they were delt with accordingly and professionally. Those types of discussions have been taken over and now I find myself defending the service that I have dedicated much of my life too. Worse yet, I find myself defending it against people that have worn the same uniform. I find that disappointing. I also find your question very, very relavent. What are we trying to accomplish with this board?

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

By the way, in the intitial post, I meant to write "tenet" not "tenant".

[ETC Pat Kaschube]

Being a newer Chief in the CG, initiated in Oct of 05, one of the things that was hammered into me during the CCTI was that we could fight it out in the mess but when we functioned in public we were of one voice. Would four or five Chiefs stand around arguing in with each other in the main p-way or would they take it into the mess? In 19 yrs 10 mo I've never seen a group of Chiefs argue in a public area. Now they may disagree in the main p-way but usually would conduct themselves with a bit of proffesionalism. So if a topic gets to a point that there are personnal attacks and snide remarks (see my post about Irony. Subtle, humurous but not that proffesional) then I would think it needs to go behind closed doors or be ended. We should, as a group recognize when this line has been crossed and hold ourselves accountable.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

The debate has degenerated into name-calling, insults, and insinuations. We've made accusations running the gamut from bad manners to racism. We're not acting very Chiefly. I am ashamed to have non-Chiefs read this discussions. I've never been in any Chief's Mess where where such disrespect and/or disregard was shown for each other.

We need to find a way to resolve this problem.

Dennis...This problem seems to lie with one person. The problem is that (for whatever reason) people respond. I'm guilty of it, you just get to a point where you've heard enough and you type and then it's out there...good or bad. I've decided that I (personally) will not respond to these type of posts.

I've been a member of this board since 2004 and have always enjoyed it...until lately. To be honest, there are days that I think it's getting pretty stupid. Then, there are days that keep me coming back. I don't want to see this site become a free-for-all, we need to keep it as it was intended. Having said that, we need to control (somewhat) the content of the board. People aren't going to join or continue to post if this type of thing continues. If people can't control themselves, I think the mess needs to control things for them...for the sake of this board.

If there's a Chief in the mess who needs some guidance...don't we provide it? I think it's time to provide some guidance or our mess isn't going to be a strong, respected mess.

[MSTCS Dave McClintock]

If there's a Chief in the mess who needs some guidance...don't we provide it? I think it's time to provide some guidance or our mess isn't going to be a strong, respected mess.

I dont chime in often, but read almost daily. Is there any chance this banter improves the Chief Mess in an open forum? I highly doubt it. We all need attention in some way. I see over and over comments about being published...Great Job! I tend to think less is best and must now have the record for the "last word" on another thread. A day without a reply?? I WIN!

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

In 19 yrs 10 mo I've never seen a group of Chiefs argue in a public area.

You must have had a sheltered career. I've seen many a good one. It usually had one chief standing up for his people connection. Besides, there are no real private areas aboard ship. Perhaps ashore, but not on ships. Someone, everyone will know in 15 minutes.

You cannot classify my involvement as agrument in the terse sence. I have rebutted remarks that have been directed at me on a personal level, but in the main I have endeavored to keep the topic on track and in a debate form. A counter point is not a fight. A disagreement is not an insult despite what some think.

I do not agree that discussions, even heated ones, will drive people away. I looked in several times before signing on and found it very dull with everyone agreeing with each other. This did not sound like the CPOs I knew in the past especially those in different areas of the Coast Guard.

I too wondered what the board was trying to accomplish especially if everyone agreed with one another.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Interesting comment........

Question, if you found it to be so dull, and didn't understand what the board was accomplishing.....why join?

And Bill, can argue that heated discussions aren't going to drive people away,....but you'd be wrong. People have already stated that they're leaving because of it. Others have stopped telling people about the site. Confrontation can be a good and neccesary thing....... pointless confrontation, has no point.

[BMCS Dennis Endicott ret]

Again, how do we have these discussions and still maintain respect and regard for each other?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Dennis, you and I have always had heated discussion. I only joined this forum to debate you. I've faced confrontation from other members of this forum at other times. But those discussions stayed on topic and there was a base of respect from which they started. The people involved respected each other from the being. You can't have that if someone is only looking for the fight. You can't have that when people knowing post things looking to get a rise out of someone.

[BMCM Deane Smith]

Dennis, you and I have always had heated discussion. I only joined this forum to debate you. I've faced confrontation from other members of this forum at other times. But those discussions stayed on topic and there was a base of respect from which they started. The people involved respected each other from the being. You can't have that if someone is only looking for the fight. You can't have that when people knowing post things looking to get a rise out of someone.

Don't forget about the disrespect being shown to the Coast Guard and senior leadership. I don't want this board to be used for that type of activity from any Chief. We wouldn't tolerate it from an active duty Chief, why should we from a retired Chief?? The junior personnel (or civilians) reading this forum may not know the difference either and that doesn't look good for the CG.

Again, how do we have these discussions and still maintain respect and regard for each other?

The person being disrespectful has to change their attitude. We can't make anyone change, we can only suggest that they do. Moderators can delete or modify inappropriate posts, but that doesn't correct the problem either. It's up to the individual.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Interesting comment........

Question, if you found it to be so dull, and didn't understand what the board was accomplishing.....why join?

And Bill, can argue that heated discussions aren't going to drive people away,....but you'd be wrong. People have already stated that they're leaving because of it. Others have stopped telling people about the site. Confrontation can be a good and neccesary thing....... pointless confrontation, has no point.

The only time when confrontation becomes pointless is when party begins attacking someone not on the merits or lack of merits of the topic and becomes personal.

Confrontation is a good thing. This is how people are trained in recruit training. They are confronted and they are expected to meet that confrontation with the programed responses of the indoctrination.

Jewish proverb: "A half-truth is a whole lie."

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

A half truth is a whole lie.....words to live by.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

A half truth is a whole lie.....words to live by.

I am glad I have been of help to you.

[BMCS Ian McVicker]

Interesting comment........

Question, if you found it to be so dull, and didn't understand what the board was accomplishing.....why join?

And Bill, can argue that heated discussions aren't going to drive people away,....but you'd be wrong. People have already stated that they're leaving because of it. Others have stopped telling people about the site. Confrontation can be a good and neccesary thing....... pointless confrontation, has no point.

Stu, you can add my name to that list. I have no problem with confrontation, and have no problem arguing an issue. Unfortunately, what we have now is not simple confrontation, but fighting and ridiculous posts. Everyday this site is becoming more like Military.com, and I do not want to be a part of that.

I have become very disappointed with the direction this site has turned in the last month or two, and have posted very little. I find it extremely difficult to even sit down and read through the threads, because they have become so out of control. Dennis, I agree with your points on the "Unvarnished Truth", but there is a fine line between that and just being plain stupid. I have always been a very strong supporter of this site, but now not only find myself not wanting to pass it on to others, but am also ashamed to say I am a member of it. The problem is not the retirees in general, because they bring a lot to the board. Wray, Joe, and the others do question things and argue points, and there is nothing wrong with that. Bill Wells is the issue.

This board has taken an ugly turn since Bill Wells was allowed to become a member. The fact of the matter is that the man was given numerous suspensions at Military.com, with his final one being indefinite. Look at the crap that goes on over there. You have to be the worst of the bottom feeders to be kicked off that board indefinitely. He has a history of inappropriate comments, and pushing buttons just for the sole purpose of starting fights, and I was absolutely amazed when he was allowed to become a member after being kicked off of that board. Bill Wells has started on that same path here, and is sucking other Chiefs into it. I for one will not do it, and between my family and command, I have much more important things to do. I am embarrassed to say that that guy was in the Coast Guard, and even more that he's a retired Master Chief.

Stu or Burt, please delete my user from this board.

[BMC John Phillips III]

Stu or Burt, please delete my user from this board.

Sad. I think it's time for Bill to go. I have actually gained something by having Ian as a member, I can't say the same for Bill.

Ian, I am not going to try to talk you into or out of anything. But I really don't want to see you go.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Oh please.... are you people going to let Bill Wells or anyone else run you off? Do you throw your radios away because they play RAP or Gospel music on them? How about your televisions... toss them my way if they have shows you find objectionable.

Did you ever think to look the other way, turn your cheek, or perhpas start a NEW thread? I see there are still the same number of threads in the PAID area. That must not be taking off like a rocket either.

The board is what it is... There are people that post here and on military.com that I completely bypass.... can't you do that?

The members here are Chiefs, Senior Chiefs & Master Chiefs... I would think you would know how to deal with this other than dropping your key board and running the other way!

Wray... :cool:

[ETC Joe Jester ret]

The difference between military.com and here is anonymous posters. Anonymity over there causes degradation of the threads quickly.

I have a question for the moderators.

Since Bill's admittance to this forum how many complaints were sent to you via email from active posters vice inactive posters and CPO non-members, and non-CPO members of this forum. I know from reading here, some active posters aren't shy about putting their arguments out for everyone to see. I'm betting that the number of hits has increased since Bill's admittance.

Behind the scenes complaints are nothing new. The majority of complaints towards MCPO Wells over on military.com has been people complaining to the top of the food chain [forum administrator] because their view of what was written wasn't congruent with the moderators view of what was written. I'm sure the same complaints are happening here, as I just responded to a comment by JP on context of something written.

I didn't think this was humanly possible, that in an organization there was no one that didn't immediately piss you off. I know I ran across a few in my time and I'm sure some considered me in that position.

Why run from that type of person? You have a few affirmative recourses, one of which is to argue your side and the other is to sue for libel. Do the non-responders quit reading? Somehow I don't think that is happening. Those non-responding readers will complain to the top of the food chain, and like all other humans, those at the top will tire of hearing the name and take such drastic action as permanently banning someone.

I suggested a game over at military.com which no one accepted the challenge. Some thought the deck was stacked, yet the person who agreed to judge was the one who permanently banned Bill. The game was who attacked first ... Ronone or Others. The reward was a one year suspension for the losing side. Some said the risk -v- gain was too great for them. That told me alot about standing by their beliefs.

Popularity of thought doesn't make the thought true.

The unvarnished truth isn't the popular truth, although I'm sure there are remote instances of both being common.

Unvarinshed truth is pure and unadultratedly raw.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Joe, as always, thanks for posting an informative opinion on the subject.

Wray, how long would you keep that radio or t.v. if it kept switching channels on you during your favorite show?

[PACS Steve Carleton]

Do you throw your radios away because they play RAP or Gospel music on them? How about your televisions... toss them my way if they have shows you find objectionable.

No, but we do have the option of changing the channel and listening to someone/something else. That, I think is what people are doing!

I don't mind a healthy debate, I've had my share here. I've even allowed myself to get pulled into a name calling situation that I wasn't very proud of.

Without singling any one person out, I wasn't thrilled at the idea of having retirees here to begin with. I changed my tune after reading and debating with Joe Jester.

Is there a solution to this problem? I think the solution already exists, accountability -- I have been talked to by someone on more than one occassion because of what I posted here, I didn't have the complete picture and my information was incorrect.

Sure, libel is an avenue for relief here, but it would be very difficult to prove the harm done to the individual in the courts , so no, libel doesn't really hold the retirees accountable.

One very good solution that someone alluded to here is that we can choose to ignore particular people and through their own postings demontstrate the type of person they are.

I just hope that we don't lose people like Ian and others in the process.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Bill Wells is the issue.

This board has taken an ugly turn since Bill Wells was allowed to become a member. The fact of the matter is that the man was given numerous suspensions at Military.com, with his final one being indefinite.

I have not discussed that occured at military.com but the actions of the moderators and owner, Fred Siegel, were less than honorable. Yes, I was suspended several times and I am still wondering why on any number of them. They all lied that they informed the person before suspending. NOT SO!

One moderator was upset that I used the Vietnam phrase REMF inconnection to another person. I admit I did it but it was in context of the topic and was true of the person. This moderator had some personal aversion to the term because he too was an REMF.

Once, long ago, Fred Seigel suspended me for merely "bumping up" a thread. He told me he did not allow that and it was unannounced. He suspended me once when I had not been on the boards in two months. I had been out of the country and when in Naples I attempted to send folks a greeting I found I was locked out. I am still wondering about that one. It was Fred's policy to suspend and ban people on his personal whim. He emailed once it was his and he didn't have to explain anythign to anyone. I understand from RMs he was the same way as a detailer.

The real issue came during the throws of the Aviation Cutterman thread. For those who do not know of this it was when a TAD airdale bent and broke the rules to gain, illegally, the Cutterman Insignia. (See the article: http://www.quicktopic.com/16/D/f5iwxNiGnsdqu.html )

The hue and cry from the airdales to Fred was more than he could bear (because for some odd reason he curried favor with them, I think it was Clearwater that put in for a medal) and he banned me. However, he banned no one else especially some of the airdales who were particularly nasty. This created a history of anti-Bill Wellsism by certain airdales. If people were not required to have names here they may do the same again.

In later rounds when I was readmitted, the airdales began again. The Forums Administrator Rob Rodriguez began receiving complaints from the same bunch. Rob did what the administrator was supposed to do and read my past posts and then kept track of others. He found that my posts were articulate and on topic and found nothing wrong with them. However, Rob is an employee of Fred. He could not buck his boss and did as he was told. His later emails to me became very official and distant; unlike in the past.

Do not use the comments of me being suspended as gospel. You need to as for specific reasons. They have wiped out my email account but others still have theirs. Ask to see those emails, especially Rob. His email address is: robuscg@hotmail.com

Look at the crap that goes on over there. You have to be the worst of the bottom feeders to be kicked off that board indefinitely. He has a history of inappropriate comments, and pushing buttons just for the sole purpose of starting fights, and I was absolutely amazed when he was allowed to become a member after being kicked off of that board. Bill Wells has started on that same path here, and is sucking other Chiefs into it. I for one will not do it, and between my family and command, I have much more important things to do. I am embarrassed to say that that guy was in the Coast Guard, and even more that he's a retired Master Chief.

I have failed to see your comments on any topic of which I am enjoined. How can you say my remarks are "inappropriate?" Who are you to judge? You seem to allow like to judge people on the say-so of others. Did you ever contact me and ask my side of the story? No, you did not. You had rather be part of the gosip mill.

I would seem that you have put your family and command aside for a brief period to bad-mouth someone you do not know. Is this more example of how the core values worK? I do not understand how you can say I "suck in" chiefs. Are they not adults who may decide for themselves? Do they not have your intelligence to know better? Are you saying you posess greater faclities than they? If so, why have you not spoken up before?

You have made your post a personal attack and one based on the worst of reasons. Rumor, tale-bearing, innuendo and outright lies.

I do not expect that you will admit to anything, but at least you have another view of the situation albeit in brief. Decide what you will but do not blame me. If you want to say others are weak and ineffective then say it to them, but leave me out of it.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

One very good solution that someone alluded to here is that we can choose to ignore particular people and through their own postings demontstrate the type of person they are.


Steve, I agree. Ignoring people and what they write is a very good way to stimulate the mind. It provides less confusion of trained thought patterns and certainly does not invigorate any topical discussion.

A person's posting certainly indicates the type of person they are in that one situation. However, does it really indicate their type? Certainly not, if I were to provide an outline of a person's "type" by what they write on these boards it may not be flattering.

One thing to recall, the retirees are new comers to these boards but are old timers when it comes to the Coast Guard. Many of the retirees retired when some here just began their careers. Just because the retirees, and others, take a different point of view does not mean the active duty types should get their hackles up and bear their teeth.

Some actually seem angry that retirees acutally know things about the Coast Guard they do not. There are many reasons for this but I, in a humble way, just wanted to voice the opinion that ignoring people is the best way to cause friction and build mistrust. It sets up polarity that is difficult to overcome. If those on active duty trully believe in their core values they would ignore only that advise to ignore others.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

No, but we do have the option of changing the channel and listening to someone/something else. That, I think is what people are doing!

I don't..... To do that all they would have to do is start a differnet thread, rather than replying to a thread that they don't want to read in the first place.

Without singling any one person out, I wasn't thrilled at the idea of having retirees here to begin with. I changed my tune after reading and debating with Joe Jester.

Well that is nice to know.... I do suspect without the retirees here, this board may have died a slow death.... It still may, due to the subscription fees, I don't know... that remains to be seen.

Perhaps we should be updated as to the number of paid subscriptions. There don't seem to be much activity in the secure area....

Wray.. :cool:

[BMC John Phillips III]

Steve, I agree. Ignoring people and what they write is a very good way to stimulate the mind. It provides less confusion of trained thought patterns and certainly does not invigorate any topical discussion.

Why Bill, why? Why do you insist on belittling people with your snide remarks. This type of attitude really has no place here, we are he to complement each other, to make our mess stronger, not to demoralize or to see who will win the next battle of wits.

And once again, you are flat out "lying" on the "Unvarneshed Truth," you don't agree at all, guess what!! You don't have to! For someone that talks about people being free thinkers, you sure do try hard to get everyone to think like Bill Wells.

[GMCM Bill Wells (Ret)]

Why Bill, why? Why do you insist on belittling people with your snide remarks. This type of attitude really has no place here, we are he to complement each other, to make our mess stronger, not to demoralize or to see who will win the next battle of wits.

John, The comment was not belittleing nor was is snide. It was sarcism. If you say such does not belong here, how is it you and few others do it so much?

Opposities may compliment each other with more success than the big love-in that people want. There must be disagreement. I know you are of the TQM generation where concensus it the goal of everything. Too frequent concensus will cause weakness and laziness. All too often people will give up if they see that they have no real voice especially if they disagree but are brow-beaten into "concensus." You cannot deny this does not exist.

And once again, you are flat out "lying" on the "Unvarneshed Truth," you don't agree at all, guess what!! You don't have to! For someone that talks about people being free thinkers, you sure do try hard to get everyone to think like Bill Wells.

This what I mean. You are discouraging free thought by procliaming it a bad thing. You say I am "lying" on any topic. This is a notice to all, mostly the junior members, that if they had an individual thought they had best hid it or they will be tagged malcontents and liars. I take it you have never read George Orwell's 1984 or perhaps "Animal Farm." Both are classics about society and its control.

As I wrote, if you ignore people you have only your own council.

"It takes a positive and a negative to complete an electrical circuit. The same rule is often good in leadership." MSGT H. G. Duncan, USMC (ret), Dunk's Almanac (1989).

So, is your circuit going to be dead in the future or truly sparked?