Thoughts On Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

By pointing that out I actually recognized that there's a statistical concern. -spence

Good god, man. THERE IS NO STATISTICAL CONCERN. You just assume there is a concern, because you don't happen to like the statistic.

If 100% of the combat Marines said they wanted to repeal DADT, I'd say "OK, if they're fine with it, let's repeal it". Using your logic, I'd say "well there must be some reason why they said that, but they can't really believe it, so I'll ignore it".

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good god, man. THERE IS NO STATISTICAL CONCERN. You just assume there is a concern, because you don't happen to like the statistic.

If 100% of the combat Marines said they wanted to repeal DADT, I'd say "OK, if they're fine with it, let's repeal it". Using your logic, I'd say "well there must be some reason why they said that, but they can't really believe it, so I'll ignore it".

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

Ok, when you said "statistical concern", I thought you meant that there was a flaw in the statictic. What you meant, I think, was that there is a concern that the statistic shows that MArines are against repealing DADT.

You also said that the Marine poll is being factored into the strategy. How is that? Seems to me like the MArines' concerns are falling on deaf ears.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

This entire post makes no sense.

Is this really ScottW just trying to screw with people? JohnR, I'd check the traces.

-spence

Nope. No funny bidness going on.

One laughable thought I just had, nobody could claim any bias on this site

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Nope. No funny bidness going on.

One laughable thought I just had, nobody could claim any bias on this site

you really checked? I wouldn't be able to figure out how...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

you really checked? I wouldn't be able to figure out how...

I know 90% of the double posters, subverted accounts (Nebe, FWW), etc.

The primary reason is for when some genius on his first posts asks if we've heard about the new "left handed Finnegan lure" shortly followed by another first time poster claiming they were so good, they were catching fish while still in the packaging. Often these people do it from the same computer

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I know 90% of the double posters, subverted accounts (Nebe, FWW), etc.

The primary reason is for when some genius on his first posts asks if we've heard about the new "left handed Finnegan lure" shortly followed by another first time poster claiming they were so good, they were catching fish while still in the packaging. Often these people do it from the same computer

You ever consider using something like this:
Multiple account login detector (AE Detector) - vBulletin.org Forum

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ok, when you said "statistical concern", I thought you meant that there was a flaw in the statictic. What you meant, I think, was that there is a concern that the statistic shows that MArines are against repealing DADT.

No, that the statistic (58%) showed a concern.

You also said that the Marine poll is being factored into the strategy. How is that? Seems to me like the MArines' concerns are falling on deaf ears.

I think it's reasonable for the Marines to be more sensitive to this issue than the other branches of the military. This has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do the culture and mission demands.

That being said, we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve. I think the military leadership at the top is looking at the strategic implications and basing their decision on what's best over the long haul. While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That being said, we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve. While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well.

-spence

I think Americans with all sorts of physical and mental disabilities will be thrilled to hear that......sign em' up!

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think Americans with all sorts of physical and mental disabilities will be thrilled to hear that......sign em' up!

Bad example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[mosholu]

Israel has had gays serving openly since 1993 and they have not had a problem with it. I give that a lot of weight because they are in a situation where fighting is a real possibility and you serve in the military/reserves for a number of years. Maybe our country is has a more homophobic bias and as a result there will be some changes the military will have to do regarding training etc. to root out any stigma relating to the gays that are serving.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Bad example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not really...if your contention is

"we can't make selective policy when talking about the rights of Americans to serve."

the Armed Forces should be made to accomodate All Americans who would like to serve lest they be guilty of some sort of descrimination or lack of tolerance and compassion....

after all..." While immediate disruption is a valid concern, keeping the armed forces in alignment with the public is important as well."

what's a little "disruption" in the name of diversity and making the military better reflect all of our society....?