SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forumIndex of Articles for this Newsgroup |
http://www.sff.net/
Archive of: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by: webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:12:32
============================================================
Article 23891
From: Maks
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:27:55 +0400
Subject: HI ALL!!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Dear ALL!!
I live in Ukraine. And I don't find Double Star on Eng Lang.
If YOU heave this book in e-version, pleas send my chapter 7.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23892
From: JT
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:18:08 -0400
Subject: The New _Notebooks_
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Saw the new reprint of _The Notebooks of Lazarus Long_ today. Didn't
get a long time to look through it, but it seemed to be only a
'decent' collection. Printed on a coarser paper and not that many
illustrations.
Anyone actually buy it and have a more in-depth opinion?
BTW, also saw a new hardcover of _Expanded Universe_. Didn't even get
a chance to open it. It's hard to be in a bookstore with two small
kids. ;)
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23893
From: Charles Graft
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:26:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I did not recommend (or even peruse) the whole site -- but the book
cover is accurate and speaks for itself.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
"Seen on the door to a light-wave lab: 'Do not look into laser with
remaining good eye.'"
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23894
From: Charles Graft
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:40:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All--
The big argument against the electoral college is that it can (and
does) in winners taking less than a plurality of the popular vote. This
results in charges of illegitimate (recent) president or fraudulent
(historical) presidents.
Certain states that historically vote for one or the other of the
parties are simply written off by both candidates as having no effect on
the election. Thus campaigning is concentrating on the few largest
pivotal states. The rest of the country might as well not be there.
The biggest problem I see in going to the popular vote is that it
would federalize requirement for voters. A state that allowed convicted
and or serving felons, 12 year olds, non-citizens, on-line or mail
voting, etc. (pick your restriction) could get more voted counted than
those that did not. Thus the demand for nationwide requirements.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
"Seen on the door to a light-wave lab: 'Do not look into laser with
remaining good eye.'"
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23895
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 21:26:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Charles Graft wrote:
> I did not recommend (or even peruse) the whole site -- but the book
> cover is accurate and speaks for itself.
The cover may speak for itself, but what it says depends upon the viewer.
The only thing I can clearly say that it says is that whomever chose the
cover wanted to get a strong reaction, and, like anyone who tries do so,
didn't make any great effort to avoid insulting people. If you want a strong
reaction, you can't.
I cannot say, however, whether or not the website was correct in saying that
they were trying to be deliberately insulting to the veterans of WWII. I
doubt it. They were attacking the idea of a particular war, and anybody who
does this too strongly _always_ appears to be attacking the military as a
whole, and the soldiers in general.
As for the book "Unfit for Command", my personal opinion is that it is
rubbish. Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not Jim Kerry is
fit for command. This is only a commentary on the book itself, not Kerry or
the website, and, to be honest, only the chapters available online through
the website you mentioned. I can give details for this opinion, if you like,
starting with highly questionable claims in the book, followed with detailed
claims by other people.
Personally, I think that it is a deliberate attempt to play upon the
Wizard's First Rule: "People believe things because they want them to be
true, or because they fear that they are true." (Paraphrased.) Not as
ridiculous as the "Clinton Death List", perhaps, but, at best, highly
questionable.
--
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23896
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 03:43:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger,
I know five currently serving senior noncoms who would disagree with
you. They have found Unfit for Command to be a compelling case against
Kerry. Of course these are all twenty year plus E7s and E8s who feel it
is the duty of CPOs and Sargeant Majors to weed out the incompetent and
venal from the officer corp at an early stage. They also have the
requsite knowledge of military custom and record keeping to truly know
how dismal Kerry's fitreps were.
I won't even go into the opinion of a certain LtC currently assigned to
the War College and has a law degree who wishes that dueling was still
legal.
I personally don't understand why Kerry won't sign a standard 180. A
180 is his usual political position. ;^>
Kevin
Filksinger wrote:
> Charles Graft wrote:
>
>>I did not recommend (or even peruse) the whole site -- but the book
>>cover is accurate and speaks for itself.
>
>
> The cover may speak for itself, but what it says depends upon the viewer.
> The only thing I can clearly say that it says is that whomever chose the
> cover wanted to get a strong reaction, and, like anyone who tries do so,
> didn't make any great effort to avoid insulting people. If you want a strong
> reaction, you can't.
>
> I cannot say, however, whether or not the website was correct in saying that
> they were trying to be deliberately insulting to the veterans of WWII. I
> doubt it. They were attacking the idea of a particular war, and anybody who
> does this too strongly _always_ appears to be attacking the military as a
> whole, and the soldiers in general.
>
> As for the book "Unfit for Command", my personal opinion is that it is
> rubbish. Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not Jim Kerry is
> fit for command. This is only a commentary on the book itself, not Kerry or
> the website, and, to be honest, only the chapters available online through
> the website you mentioned. I can give details for this opinion, if you like,
> starting with highly questionable claims in the book, followed with detailed
> claims by other people.
>
> Personally, I think that it is a deliberate attempt to play upon the
> Wizard's First Rule: "People believe things because they want them to be
> true, or because they fear that they are true." (Paraphrased.) Not as
> ridiculous as the "Clinton Death List", perhaps, but, at best, highly
> questionable.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23897
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (John Tilden)
Date: 9 Sep 2004 13:23:59 GMT
Subject: This might make Deb happier....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
(See the next to last paragraph about the cantina scene. ;) --JT
From scifi.com:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-09/08/10.30.film
09:00am ET, 8-September-04
Star Wars DVD Has Christensen
Hayden Christensen—who played Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars: Episode II—Attack
of the Clones and reprises the role in the upcoming Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge
of the Sith—will make a brief appearance in the original Star Wars trilogy
when it is released on DVD for the first time, according to USA Today.
Christensen now appears at the end of Return of the Jedi in a scene where
Luke sees the spirits of Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi and his father, Anakin Skywalker.
The role was originally played by Sebastian Shaw, who still appears as the
human face behind the Darth Vader mask in another scene in the film.
Other minor updates made to the 1997 special editions include the uncredited
appearance of Ian McDiarmid as a holographic Emperor in The Empire Strikes
Back (McDiarmid played the role of the Emperor in Return of the Jedi, as
well as that of Senator Palpatine in the recent trilogy), and a compromise
to the infamous Star Wars cantina shooting, in which Han Solo (Harrison
Ford) and Greedo now shoot at each other at the same time, the paper said.
The four-disc set—which includes commentaries by director George Lucas and
Carrie Fisher, interviews with the cast and crew, original trailers and
production photos, and a preview of Episode III—will be released Sept. 21.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23898
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 17:34:08 -0700
Subject: State's Rights to run elections
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In the Electoral College topic, BC raised the issue of states' voting
requirements being nullified in favor of Federal requirements.
>>The biggest problem I see in going to the popular vote is that it
would federalize requirement for voters. A state that allowed convicted
and or serving felons, 12 year olds, non-citizens, on-line or mail
voting, etc. (pick your restriction) could get more voted counted than
those that did not. Thus the demand for nationwide requirements.<<end
quote>>
Here in Washington we are experiencing that already. We have held a
"Blanket Primary" forever until we the State of Washington were sued by the
GOP and Democratic Party because it is inherently unfair or some such
legalism for we the voters to vote for our choice regardless of party
affiliation in a primary election. This means that I, the voter must chose
to vote a certain party's ballot or have no choice in who my county
commissioner, city councilman, or legislator is since in many cases there
are only candidates from one party running. On my Absentee ballots, there
are 4--GOP, DEM, LIB, and Non Partisan, I could chose to vote for a county
race, a city race, or a state race since each party had one "uncontested"
position.
I threw up my hands after a few days and just voted the NP races. Call it a
protest or a cop out. I feel this confusing multi-ballot primary is the
federalization of voting requirements.
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
`rita
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23899
From: Filksinger"
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:06:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Kevin Patrick Crowley wrote:
> Filksinger,
>
> I know five currently serving senior noncoms who would disagree with
> you. They have found Unfit for Command to be a compelling case
> against Kerry. Of course these are all twenty year plus E7s and E8s
> who feel it is the duty of CPOs and Sargeant Majors to weed out the
> incompetent and venal from the officer corp at an early stage. They
> also have the requsite knowledge of military custom and record
> keeping to truly know how dismal Kerry's fitreps were.
Did they read the fitreps, or just the book? I find it hard to believe that
the report described and presented as a scanned image at this
website(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html) is
"dismal".
> I won't even go into the opinion of a certain LtC currently assigned
> to the War College and has a law degree who wishes that dueling was
> still legal.
>
> I personally don't understand why Kerry won't sign a standard 180. A
> 180 is his usual political position. ;^>
>
> Kevin
Well, an overview of my problems with the book below. Note that none of them
is necessarily conclusive. I strongly suspect that Kerry's first Purple
Heart was a bit questionable, though I doubt that it was nearly to the
degree that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would have us believe.
1. Obvious extreme bias throughout, without even a pretense of
evenhandedness. The group has admitted that they hate Kerry more for his
anti-Vietnam war work than for anything he did or did not do in Vietnam.
2. Many of the claims they make are without substantiation, though they
sprinkle short statements, mostly without context, throughout, that make it
appear that someone testified to what they claim.
3. Use of various deceptive writing practices, designed to make their claims
look stronger or more damning. Reading these chapters reminds me of reading
the claims of Holocaust deniers.
4. They severely malign a number of soldiers, while pretending they are only
talking about Kerry. For instance, this statement: "Steve Gardner is the
sole crewman who was not swayed by Kerry during his many post-Vietnam years
of solicitation aimed at gaining the support of his crew." The unstated but
clear message, "The other crewmen, when supporting Kerry's story of events,
are liars." Indeed, when Jim Rassmann, the soldier who Kerry saved when he
got his Bronze Star and an avowed Republican, stated that Kerry had indeed
been wounded and under heavy fire when he pulled Rassmann from the water, a
spokesman from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth called him a liar.
5. Several of the originators of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (SBVFT)
had repeatedly and very firmly lauded Kerry in the past, some as recently as
2003. They were often lavish in their praise. Even when they previously
questioned Kerry's record or Kerry himself in the past, they still felt it
necessary to change their stories for the worse. Two of them, Mr. Hoffmann
and Mr. Lonsdale, only turned against Kerry after his authorized biography
portrayed them as reckess and causing excessive US and civilian casualties,
a picture based largely upon statements by Swift Boat veterans other than
Kerry.
8. The SBVFT claim that there is something fishy about a man who gets three
Purple Hearts in four months as a Swift boat sailor, and something dishonest
about a man who got his Purple Hearts for wounds too minor to force them to
take time off duty. This is not true; it was common to receive Purple Hearts
for even minor injuries sustained in combat. Previous statements by one of
Kerry's commanders who is now working with the SBVFT admit this. "There were
an awful lot of Purple Hearts - from shrapnel, some of those might have been
M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple
Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of
them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the
exception."
7. The group claims that Kerry's medals, particularly the Bronze Star, were
a result of Kerry's own reports on the combat. They claim that the reports
were filled with lies, and apparently the medals were awarded without other
confirmation as to what happened. This is a highly questionable claim, for
several reasons:
a. This contradicts standard military proceedure, which is to
investigate all such medal requests, especially for things like Bronze and
Silver Stars, thoroughly.
b. This contradicts previous claims by at least two of the SBVFT group's
leaders, who specifically claimed the opposite about these medals in the
past. Mr. Lonsdale, for example, reported that "Witness reports were
reviewed; battle reports were reviewed", and "It was a very complete and
carefully orchestrated procedure."
c. Kerry didn't even write the reports that supposedly bear his
initials. The initials on the reports aren't the same as Kerry's in the
first place. In addition, the initials weren't even the initials of the
person who wrote the reports, but rather the initials of the person at
headquarters who _received_ the reports.
8. Swift Boat veterans who were interviewed by the investigator hired by the
SBVFT claim that they were first led to believe that the investigator was
working for Kerry's camp, and were asked to testify as to events that
happened when Kerry was with the Swift Boats. Their statements were then
later twisted and distorted to make misleading and outright false claims.
For example, they report that their words were sent back to them as
affidavits to sign with all references to enemy combat removed from accounts
of actions in which Kerry recieved medals.
9. The man who claims to be an eyewitness to Kerry's first Purple Heart,
Rear Admiral William Schachte, and who claims that there was no combat and
that the wound was self-inflicted, is reported by the only two other
witnesses (Kerry has not commented, so far as I know) as not having been
there at all. Even Dr. Louis Letson, who claims to have worked on Kerry,
admitted that he didn't remember Schachte until after Schachte and others
talked with him and reminded him. Interestingly enough, Dr. Louis Letson,
who claims that Kerry's wound was treated by him, and was very minor and
probably self inflicted, is not the person who signed the paperwork on the
treatment of the wound, meaning that Schachte's claim of being there is
corroborated by a person who didn't remember him without being reminded
_and_ who can't prove he was there, either.
10. William B. Rood, editor for the Chicago Times, is the only other
surviving officer from the action that gained Kerry his Silver Star, and
wrote this 1600-word piece (http://www.usnewslink.com/williamrood.htm)
claiming that the SBVFT are lying outright. Similar claims are made by other
eyewitnesses.
There are other reasons, but that should be good enough for now.
Don't get me wrong. I don't trust Kerry or his account of events. I trust
him about as far as I could throw him in May. I just trust the "Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth" as far as I can throw them now, and right now I can
barely stand.
For more information, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?ex=1094875200&en=ea162b9d30dc19e2&ei=5070&pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=729916e83be2ab35&ex=1094005334
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
http://www.usnewslink.com/williamrood.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/realcities/news/politics/9138115.htm
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
--
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23900
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:11:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Oh Yes!! They read that fitrep. That is why they know he was a fuck up.
You see if you don't get almost all excellents with the very
occasional good and you don't get endorsements such as "Officer should
be promoted immediately" You are on the path of being eased out of the
military. Starnge way of grading bu that is the way it works. If Doc
Coffin were still around he could explain it much better.
Kevin
Filksinger wrote:
> Kevin Patrick Crowley wrote:
>
>>Filksinger,
>>
>>I know five currently serving senior noncoms who would disagree with
>>you. They have found Unfit for Command to be a compelling case
>>against Kerry. Of course these are all twenty year plus E7s and E8s
>>who feel it is the duty of CPOs and Sargeant Majors to weed out the
>>incompetent and venal from the officer corp at an early stage. They
>>also have the requsite knowledge of military custom and record
>>keeping to truly know how dismal Kerry's fitreps were.
>
>
> Did they read the fitreps, or just the book? I find it hard to believe that
> the report described and presented as a scanned image at this
> website(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html) is
> "dismal".
>
>
>>I won't even go into the opinion of a certain LtC currently assigned
>>to the War College and has a law degree who wishes that dueling was
>>still legal.
>>
>>I personally don't understand why Kerry won't sign a standard 180. A
>>180 is his usual political position. ;^>
>>
>>Kevin
>
>
> Well, an overview of my problems with the book below. Note that none of them
> is necessarily conclusive. I strongly suspect that Kerry's first Purple
> Heart was a bit questionable, though I doubt that it was nearly to the
> degree that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would have us believe.
>
> 1. Obvious extreme bias throughout, without even a pretense of
> evenhandedness. The group has admitted that they hate Kerry more for his
> anti-Vietnam war work than for anything he did or did not do in Vietnam.
>
> 2. Many of the claims they make are without substantiation, though they
> sprinkle short statements, mostly without context, throughout, that make it
> appear that someone testified to what they claim.
>
> 3. Use of various deceptive writing practices, designed to make their claims
> look stronger or more damning. Reading these chapters reminds me of reading
> the claims of Holocaust deniers.
>
> 4. They severely malign a number of soldiers, while pretending they are only
> talking about Kerry. For instance, this statement: "Steve Gardner is the
> sole crewman who was not swayed by Kerry during his many post-Vietnam years
> of solicitation aimed at gaining the support of his crew." The unstated but
> clear message, "The other crewmen, when supporting Kerry's story of events,
> are liars." Indeed, when Jim Rassmann, the soldier who Kerry saved when he
> got his Bronze Star and an avowed Republican, stated that Kerry had indeed
> been wounded and under heavy fire when he pulled Rassmann from the water, a
> spokesman from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth called him a liar.
>
> 5. Several of the originators of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (SBVFT)
> had repeatedly and very firmly lauded Kerry in the past, some as recently as
> 2003. They were often lavish in their praise. Even when they previously
> questioned Kerry's record or Kerry himself in the past, they still felt it
> necessary to change their stories for the worse. Two of them, Mr. Hoffmann
> and Mr. Lonsdale, only turned against Kerry after his authorized biography
> portrayed them as reckess and causing excessive US and civilian casualties,
> a picture based largely upon statements by Swift Boat veterans other than
> Kerry.
>
> 8. The SBVFT claim that there is something fishy about a man who gets three
> Purple Hearts in four months as a Swift boat sailor, and something dishonest
> about a man who got his Purple Hearts for wounds too minor to force them to
> take time off duty. This is not true; it was common to receive Purple Hearts
> for even minor injuries sustained in combat. Previous statements by one of
> Kerry's commanders who is now working with the SBVFT admit this. "There were
> an awful lot of Purple Hearts - from shrapnel, some of those might have been
> M-40 grenades," said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple
> Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of
> them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the
> exception."
>
> 7. The group claims that Kerry's medals, particularly the Bronze Star, were
> a result of Kerry's own reports on the combat. They claim that the reports
> were filled with lies, and apparently the medals were awarded without other
> confirmation as to what happened. This is a highly questionable claim, for
> several reasons:
> a. This contradicts standard military proceedure, which is to
> investigate all such medal requests, especially for things like Bronze and
> Silver Stars, thoroughly.
> b. This contradicts previous claims by at least two of the SBVFT group's
> leaders, who specifically claimed the opposite about these medals in the
> past. Mr. Lonsdale, for example, reported that "Witness reports were
> reviewed; battle reports were reviewed", and "It was a very complete and
> carefully orchestrated procedure."
> c. Kerry didn't even write the reports that supposedly bear his
> initials. The initials on the reports aren't the same as Kerry's in the
> first place. In addition, the initials weren't even the initials of the
> person who wrote the reports, but rather the initials of the person at
> headquarters who _received_ the reports.
>
> 8. Swift Boat veterans who were interviewed by the investigator hired by the
> SBVFT claim that they were first led to believe that the investigator was
> working for Kerry's camp, and were asked to testify as to events that
> happened when Kerry was with the Swift Boats. Their statements were then
> later twisted and distorted to make misleading and outright false claims.
> For example, they report that their words were sent back to them as
> affidavits to sign with all references to enemy combat removed from accounts
> of actions in which Kerry recieved medals.
>
> 9. The man who claims to be an eyewitness to Kerry's first Purple Heart,
> Rear Admiral William Schachte, and who claims that there was no combat and
> that the wound was self-inflicted, is reported by the only two other
> witnesses (Kerry has not commented, so far as I know) as not having been
> there at all. Even Dr. Louis Letson, who claims to have worked on Kerry,
> admitted that he didn't remember Schachte until after Schachte and others
> talked with him and reminded him. Interestingly enough, Dr. Louis Letson,
> who claims that Kerry's wound was treated by him, and was very minor and
> probably self inflicted, is not the person who signed the paperwork on the
> treatment of the wound, meaning that Schachte's claim of being there is
> corroborated by a person who didn't remember him without being reminded
> _and_ who can't prove he was there, either.
>
> 10. William B. Rood, editor for the Chicago Times, is the only other
> surviving officer from the action that gained Kerry his Silver Star, and
> wrote this 1600-word piece (http://www.usnewslink.com/williamrood.htm)
> claiming that the SBVFT are lying outright. Similar claims are made by other
> eyewitnesses.
>
>
> There are other reasons, but that should be good enough for now.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I don't trust Kerry or his account of events. I trust
> him about as far as I could throw him in May. I just trust the "Swift Boat
> Veterans for Truth" as far as I can throw them now, and right now I can
> barely stand.
>
> For more information, see:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?ex=1094875200&en=ea162b9d30dc19e2&ei=5070&pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=729916e83be2ab35&ex=1094005334
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
>
> http://www.usnewslink.com/williamrood.htm
>
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/realcities/news/politics/9138115.htm
>
> http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23901
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:20:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <4141d230.0@news.sff.net>,
Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
wrote:
> Oh Yes!! They read that fitrep. That is why they know he was a fuck up.
> You see if you don't get almost all excellents with the very
> occasional good and you don't get endorsements such as "Officer should
> be promoted immediately" You are on the path of being eased out of the
> military. Starnge way of grading bu that is the way it works. If Doc
> Coffin were still around he could explain it much better.
>
> Kevin
Kevin:
Both Doc Coffin and others who served in the _Army_ at or about
that time might, with some qualifications, agree with your
summary with respect to Army officer evaluation reports (OE-1s as
they were named back then), which might also explain why the Army
NCOs you cite as authority have your same opinion.
Where's your proof that the categories set forth _Navy's_ fitness
reports also were so hyper-inflated as a matter of course that
any rating less than the highest on one of them was an indication
of an imminent or eventual release from active duty?
--
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23902
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:47:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Two currently serving CPO E-7s and one Battalion Sargeant Major Marines
E-8. All are at twenty or better.
Kevin
David M. Silver wrote:
> In article <4141d230.0@news.sff.net>,
> Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Oh Yes!! They read that fitrep. That is why they know he was a fuck up.
>> You see if you don't get almost all excellents with the very
>>occasional good and you don't get endorsements such as "Officer should
>>be promoted immediately" You are on the path of being eased out of the
>>military. Starnge way of grading bu that is the way it works. If Doc
>>Coffin were still around he could explain it much better.
>>
>>Kevin
>
>
> Kevin:
>
> Both Doc Coffin and others who served in the _Army_ at or about
> that time might, with some qualifications, agree with your
> summary with respect to Army officer evaluation reports (OE-1s as
> they were named back then), which might also explain why the Army
> NCOs you cite as authority have your same opinion.
>
> Where's your proof that the categories set forth _Navy's_ fitness
> reports also were so hyper-inflated as a matter of course that
> any rating less than the highest on one of them was an indication
> of an imminent or eventual release from active duty?
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23903
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:10:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <4141e8b6.0@news.sff.net>,
Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
wrote:
> Two currently serving CPO E-7s and one Battalion Sargeant Major Marines
> E-8. All are at twenty or better.
>
> Kevin
Please forgive me, Kevin, but that's not proof. That's mere
opinion of three of today's enlisted men, none of whom, so far as
you've shown, possess any special knowledge of the rating system
in the USN during the period in question. Not all knowledge
reposes in any given, or even three given, E-7s or E-8s, much as
they might wish you to believe it to be so. And "twenty or
better" means service of all three may easily have commenced
nearly ten years post Vietnam War, which the last time I looked
ended thirty-one years ago. At best, one or more of them could
have been a seaman apprentice or seaman or a pfc or lance
corporal at the very end of it. I'd hate to tell you how much was
lacking in my knowledge of what went into the officers' OE-1s
when I was an E-3; and I was a pretty bright E-3 when I was an
E-3.
It seems very odd to me, considering that some of Lt.(jg) Kerry's
potential rating and reviewing officers are among these so-called
Swift Veterans for the so-called Truth, but that no one except
you, to my knowledge, has raised this particular point. I've been
watching, because I am, you might say, somewhat aware of what
might or might not go into an OE-1 for an Army officer of the
period; and I did take the trouble to download and review those
OE-1s of Kerry that have been available for quite some time. I
wondered about Navy standards; but since the issue hasn't been
raised by Kerry's opponents have concluded that the Navy's use of
the system wasn't as deceptive as the Army's during the same
period.
Kevin: it was a scandal during the 1960s how the Army abused
those designed to be objective ratings and turned the whole
system into a subjective one, involving "code" phrases in the
narrative descriptions to keep the "wrong sort" from being
promoted. You don't need Doc Coffin to verify that.
I've concluded one obvious reason why this issue hasn't been
raised is the earlier public statements those in such position
have made to the effect Kerry _was_ an excellent officer while
serving with the Swift boats. They'd contradict themselves, just
as they have about his decorations; and frankly their credibility
is just about circling the drain in the toilet anyway. A second
reason might be what might be contained on their own OE-1s, which
they'd be asked to reveal, if they raised the issue to prove any
such assertion. They'd have to explain any slightest deviation
from the very highest rating in their own records. A third might
be Kerry's next assignment after his tour of duty with the boats:
he was assigned as a flag officer's aide, which, forgive me
again, isn't where any of our military or naval service assign
active duty failures as junior officers. To the contrary as is
very well known, the naval and military services assign those who
have demonstrated the potential themselves to become flag
officers to the job as part of their junior officer's education.
It's quite a privilege and a compliment to be assigned to that
duty, guaranteed to make your contemporaries jealous.
>
> David M. Silver wrote:
> > In article <4141d230.0@news.sff.net>,
> > Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Oh Yes!! They read that fitrep. That is why they know he was a fuck up.
> >> You see if you don't get almost all excellents with the very
> >>occasional good and you don't get endorsements such as "Officer should
> >>be promoted immediately" You are on the path of being eased out of the
> >>military. Starnge way of grading bu that is the way it works. If Doc
> >>Coffin were still around he could explain it much better.
> >>
> >>Kevin
> >
> >
> > Kevin:
> >
> > Both Doc Coffin and others who served in the _Army_ at or about
> > that time might, with some qualifications, agree with your
> > summary with respect to Army officer evaluation reports (OE-1s as
> > they were named back then), which might also explain why the Army
> > NCOs you cite as authority have your same opinion.
> >
> > Where's your proof that the categories set forth _Navy's_ fitness
> > reports also were so hyper-inflated as a matter of course that
> > any rating less than the highest on one of them was an indication
> > of an imminent or eventual release from active duty?
> >
--
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23904
From: Kevin Patrick Crowley
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:16:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
The only proof that would suffice for you would be for a deity to come
down from a mountain top and give you the revealed truth as you have
already precluded the others. You have an opinion. Nothing will change it.
I never put them out as "proof" just informed opinions. But I've seen
other officer fitreps from that period in comparison Kerry's were
lackluster at best once he got off that destroyer and got worse as time
went on.
Kevin
David M. Silver wrote:
> In article <4141e8b6.0@news.sff.net>,
> Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Two currently serving CPO E-7s and one Battalion Sargeant Major Marines
>>E-8. All are at twenty or better.
>>
>>Kevin
>
>
> Please forgive me, Kevin, but that's not proof. That's mere
> opinion of three of today's enlisted men, none of whom, so far as
> you've shown, possess any special knowledge of the rating system
> in the USN during the period in question. Not all knowledge
> reposes in any given, or even three given, E-7s or E-8s, much as
> they might wish you to believe it to be so. And "twenty or
> better" means service of all three may easily have commenced
> nearly ten years post Vietnam War, which the last time I looked
> ended thirty-one years ago. At best, one or more of them could
> have been a seaman apprentice or seaman or a pfc or lance
> corporal at the very end of it. I'd hate to tell you how much was
> lacking in my knowledge of what went into the officers' OE-1s
> when I was an E-3; and I was a pretty bright E-3 when I was an
> E-3.
>
> It seems very odd to me, considering that some of Lt.(jg) Kerry's
> potential rating and reviewing officers are among these so-called
> Swift Veterans for the so-called Truth, but that no one except
> you, to my knowledge, has raised this particular point. I've been
> watching, because I am, you might say, somewhat aware of what
> might or might not go into an OE-1 for an Army officer of the
> period; and I did take the trouble to download and review those
> OE-1s of Kerry that have been available for quite some time. I
> wondered about Navy standards; but since the issue hasn't been
> raised by Kerry's opponents have concluded that the Navy's use of
> the system wasn't as deceptive as the Army's during the same
> period.
>
> Kevin: it was a scandal during the 1960s how the Army abused
> those designed to be objective ratings and turned the whole
> system into a subjective one, involving "code" phrases in the
> narrative descriptions to keep the "wrong sort" from being
> promoted. You don't need Doc Coffin to verify that.
>
> I've concluded one obvious reason why this issue hasn't been
> raised is the earlier public statements those in such position
> have made to the effect Kerry _was_ an excellent officer while
> serving with the Swift boats. They'd contradict themselves, just
> as they have about his decorations; and frankly their credibility
> is just about circling the drain in the toilet anyway. A second
> reason might be what might be contained on their own OE-1s, which
> they'd be asked to reveal, if they raised the issue to prove any
> such assertion. They'd have to explain any slightest deviation
> from the very highest rating in their own records. A third might
> be Kerry's next assignment after his tour of duty with the boats:
> he was assigned as a flag officer's aide, which, forgive me
> again, isn't where any of our military or naval service assign
> active duty failures as junior officers. To the contrary as is
> very well known, the naval and military services assign those who
> have demonstrated the potential themselves to become flag
> officers to the job as part of their junior officer's education.
> It's quite a privilege and a compliment to be assigned to that
> duty, guaranteed to make your contemporaries jealous.
>
>
>
>>David M. Silver wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4141d230.0@news.sff.net>,
>>> Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oh Yes!! They read that fitrep. That is why they know he was a fuck up.
>>>> You see if you don't get almost all excellents with the very
>>>>occasional good and you don't get endorsements such as "Officer should
>>>>be promoted immediately" You are on the path of being eased out of the
>>>>military. Starnge way of grading bu that is the way it works. If Doc
>>>>Coffin were still around he could explain it much better.
>>>>
>>>>Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>Kevin:
>>>
>>>Both Doc Coffin and others who served in the _Army_ at or about
>>>that time might, with some qualifications, agree with your
>>>summary with respect to Army officer evaluation reports (OE-1s as
>>>they were named back then), which might also explain why the Army
>>>NCOs you cite as authority have your same opinion.
>>>
>>>Where's your proof that the categories set forth _Navy's_ fitness
>>>reports also were so hyper-inflated as a matter of course that
>>>any rating less than the highest on one of them was an indication
>>>of an imminent or eventual release from active duty?
>>>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23905
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:25:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <41427c1b.0@news.sff.net>,
Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
wrote:
> The only proof that would suffice for you would be for a deity to come
> down from a mountain top and give you the revealed truth as you have
> already precluded the others. You have an opinion. Nothing will change it.
>
Kevin, you hardly even know my name. I don't think we've even
exchanged a posting reply prior to this in the entire period I've
read sff.discuss.heinlein-forum. A bit of expressed doubt on my
part concerning the weight of reliability you place in three
unnamed NCOs, known to you but not to anyone else here, no matter
how high the value of their prior service to the armed forces has
been, is hardly a basis for concluding I would require Jove or
some other alleged deity to wing his way on down here to reveal a
truth for me to believe it.
There are a lot of things I have come to believe to be true, and
a lot of opinions I've held I've changed in sixty-two years. I've
never required deities from on high or any other places to make
or change an opinion; nor have any of them come down to speak to
me concerning my opinions. Lacking divinity to make up my mind, I
try to use facts and reasonable inferences concerning them.
I've served with a lot of E-7s and E-8s. Some few were very wise
men; some other few were too dumb to distinguish dogshit from
dessert in daylight; but most were at neither extreme. I never
noticed, and doubt the truth of any assertion that, except
possibly within of a Pentagon assignment in a branch of G-1
dealing with officers' retention, promotion, or assignments,
assuming enlisted men are more than periphally involved in such
decision-making, which I doubt, the ability to evaluate an
officer's OE-1 is a requirement for any enlisted man's MOS.
> I never put them out as "proof" just informed opinions.
Pardon me, I asked what your proof was. You replied by offering
the mere opinions of three enlisted men, who apparently did not
even serve during the period in question. Moreover, not only can
an _informed_ opinion sometimes be impressive but an opinion that
is both "informed" _and_ "qualified" as expert opinion is often
accorded greater weight than mere common knowledge or ability, or
the usual lackings thereof, that is: for it to _be_ proof it must
be better than a mere lay opinion that you or I might possess on
any number of subjects. You'd have one hell of a time qualifying
before any judgmental body or thinking person any E-7 or E-8 from
another period of time, without more, as anything like an expert
witness whose opinions possess greater than common weight and
properly may serve to _prove_ the point in issue. In other words,
your E-7 and E-8 opinions, on the point you've offered them, rate
right up there with the proverbial pfc serving his unit as
latrine orderly, overhearing all the equally proverbial shithouse
rumors.
> But I've seen
> other officer fitreps from that period in comparison Kerry's were
> lackluster at best once he got off that destroyer and got worse as time
> went on.
>
So now you're setting yourself up as an authority over Navy OE-1s
from the period? Okay. I would hardly dare to do that myself.
I've already noted I wondered a bit on the point when I read
Kerry's OE-1s, which should have tipped you that I hardly require
a deity to lead me to truth in this instance; but I do require
some weight of proof greater than I personally possess. I'll
eschew asking for your qualifications, because if you possess
anything other than the ordinary I'm sure you'll let us know.
Otherwise, have at it. Your opinion is just as good as those
formed by anyone else upon the facts and biases, if any, we all
use to form opinions upon. For most people making most arguments
most of the time that amounts to GIGO.
> Kevin
>
> David M. Silver wrote:
> > In article <4141e8b6.0@news.sff.net>,
> > Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Two currently serving CPO E-7s and one Battalion Sargeant Major Marines
> >>E-8. All are at twenty or better.
> >>
> >>Kevin
> >
> >
> > Please forgive me, Kevin, but that's not proof. That's mere
> > opinion of three of today's enlisted men, none of whom, so far as
> > you've shown, possess any special knowledge of the rating system
> > in the USN during the period in question. Not all knowledge
> > reposes in any given, or even three given, E-7s or E-8s, much as
> > they might wish you to believe it to be so. And "twenty or
> > better" means service of all three may easily have commenced
> > nearly ten years post Vietnam War, which the last time I looked
> > ended thirty-one years ago. At best, one or more of them could
> > have been a seaman apprentice or seaman or a pfc or lance
> > corporal at the very end of it. I'd hate to tell you how much was
> > lacking in my knowledge of what went into the officers' OE-1s
> > when I was an E-3; and I was a pretty bright E-3 when I was an
> > E-3.
> >
> > It seems very odd to me, considering that some of Lt.(jg) Kerry's
> > potential rating and reviewing officers are among these so-called
> > Swift Veterans for the so-called Truth, but that no one except
> > you, to my knowledge, has raised this particular point. I've been
> > watching, because I am, you might say, somewhat aware of what
> > might or might not go into an OE-1 for an Army officer of the
> > period; and I did take the trouble to download and review those
> > OE-1s of Kerry that have been available for quite some time. I
> > wondered about Navy standards; but since the issue hasn't been
> > raised by Kerry's opponents have concluded that the Navy's use of
> > the system wasn't as deceptive as the Army's during the same
> > period.
> >
> > Kevin: it was a scandal during the 1960s how the Army abused
> > those designed to be objective ratings and turned the whole
> > system into a subjective one, involving "code" phrases in the
> > narrative descriptions to keep the "wrong sort" from being
> > promoted. You don't need Doc Coffin to verify that.
> >
> > I've concluded one obvious reason why this issue hasn't been
> > raised is the earlier public statements those in such position
> > have made to the effect Kerry _was_ an excellent officer while
> > serving with the Swift boats. They'd contradict themselves, just
> > as they have about his decorations; and frankly their credibility
> > is just about circling the drain in the toilet anyway. A second
> > reason might be what might be contained on their own OE-1s, which
> > they'd be asked to reveal, if they raised the issue to prove any
> > such assertion. They'd have to explain any slightest deviation
> > from the very highest rating in their own records. A third might
> > be Kerry's next assignment after his tour of duty with the boats:
> > he was assigned as a flag officer's aide, which, forgive me
> > again, isn't where any of our military or naval service assign
> > active duty failures as junior officers. To the contrary as is
> > very well known, the naval and military services assign those who
> > have demonstrated the potential themselves to become flag
> > officers to the job as part of their junior officer's education.
> > It's quite a privilege and a compliment to be assigned to that
> > duty, guaranteed to make your contemporaries jealous.
> >
> >
> >
> >>David M. Silver wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <4141d230.0@news.sff.net>,
> >>> Kevin Patrick Crowley <kevin.crowley@crowleyenterprises.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Oh Yes!! They read that fitrep. That is why they know he was a fuck up.
> >>>> You see if you don't get almost all excellents with the very
> >>>>occasional good and you don't get endorsements such as "Officer should
> >>>>be promoted immediately" You are on the path of being eased out of the
> >>>>military. Starnge way of grading bu that is the way it works. If Doc
> >>>>Coffin were still around he could explain it much better.
> >>>>
> >>>>Kevin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Kevin:
> >>>
> >>>Both Doc Coffin and others who served in the _Army_ at or about
> >>>that time might, with some qualifications, agree with your
> >>>summary with respect to Army officer evaluation reports (OE-1s as
> >>>they were named back then), which might also explain why the Army
> >>>NCOs you cite as authority have your same opinion.
> >>>
> >>>Where's your proof that the categories set forth _Navy's_ fitness
> >>>reports also were so hyper-inflated as a matter of course that
> >>>any rating less than the highest on one of them was an indication
> >>>of an imminent or eventual release from active duty?
> >>>
> >
> >
--
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23906
From: georule@civilwarstlouis.com
Date: 11 Sep 2004 16:25:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Pro or Con?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
The problem with the anti-Kerry Swift boat guys is that they are quite upfront
in saying that if Kerry hadn't made the accusations of war crimes *after*
his service (which, btw, even John McCain who is highly critical of efforts
to dissect Kerry's war record says his later statements should be fair game
for comment), they wouldn't be doing what they are doing. They clearly communicate
just how offended and angry they are about the war crimes charges issue
and how central it is as motivation for what they are doing now.
To me that is illegitimate and highly colors their credibility in a negative
fashion as regards their recollections as offered in recent years (as opposed
to the documentation at the time). I'm entirely comfortable with them going
after him on the war crimes thing --don't drag the other into it. Unfortunately,
they have, and not by accident --it (his war record) was the "publicity
wedge" they needed to get a public conversation on the other issue (war
crimes), which is much more "ho-hum" to the general non-Vietnam serving
public.
I sympathize with their pain, and have no doubt it is genuine. My stepfather
(deceased; served as a boilerman on a Navy destroyer off the coast in the
mid-60's) wouldn't support anything having to do with Jane Fonda on any
terms or for any reason. I once got him to accept me buying something for
him by threatening to send the money to Tom Hayden's campaign if he didn't.
Those guys who feel that deeply on these kinds of issues are still out there,
still pissed, and still hurt.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23907
From: Robert Slater"
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:30:52 -0700
Subject: Re: State's Rights to run elections
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Lorrita,
The Blanket Primary seriously p****d me off, but I am voting straight
Libertarian, because if they do not get 10 percent of the vote they don't
get to be in the November Election. I truly hope that it get's overturned
because it makes it nearly impossible for a non Demo/Rep to get elected.
How's that for one of the most "progressive" states in the union?
Rob
"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4140f693.0@news.sff.net...
> In the Electoral College topic, BC raised the issue of states' voting
> requirements being nullified in favor of Federal requirements.
>>>The biggest problem I see in going to the popular vote is that it
> would federalize requirement for voters. A state that allowed convicted
> and or serving felons, 12 year olds, non-citizens, on-line or mail
> voting, etc. (pick your restriction) could get more voted counted than
> those that did not. Thus the demand for nationwide requirements.<<end
> quote>>
>
> Here in Washington we are experiencing that already. We have held a
> "Blanket Primary" forever until we the State of Washington were sued by
> the
> GOP and Democratic Party because it is inherently unfair or some such
> legalism for we the voters to vote for our choice regardless of party
> affiliation in a primary election. This means that I, the voter must
> chose
> to vote a certain party's ballot or have no choice in who my county
> commissioner, city councilman, or legislator is since in many cases there
> are only candidates from one party running. On my Absentee ballots, there
> are 4--GOP, DEM, LIB, and Non Partisan, I could chose to vote for a county
> race, a city race, or a state race since each party had one "uncontested"
> position.
>
> I threw up my hands after a few days and just voted the NP races. Call it
> a
> protest or a cop out. I feel this confusing multi-ballot primary is the
> federalization of voting requirements.
>
> --
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
>
> `rita
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
Archive of: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by: webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:12:32
First article in this archive: 23891
Last article in this archive: 23907
Oldest article in this archive: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:27:55 +0400
Newest article in this archive: 12 Sep 2004 03:56:28 GMT