coyote wrote:You know, when you say "I've had military training" and all this hard core stuff but, when asked, go all cryptic and say "I can't talk about it", do you not realize how much this smacks of handwaving artistry?
Well, since you are having a tough time with the phrase 'I'm not at liberty to discuss it', I'm gonna assume that you are also not familiar with the idea of 'loss of security clearance' either, regardless of the fact that everything you need to know about that specific phrase is directly
in that phrase.
If you rattle off a list of FMs and describe paintball as "one means which civilians can learn", then guess what?
I'm gonna guess you have a tough time with honesty because that is not what I did. I did mention just
one field manual by name. Not a list of them.
You say that I meant that paintball was one way to learn, when the idea I was getting across is that there are a few military tactics that can be learned from paintball, but it shouldn't be thought of as a good way to learn them in a general sense. I have specifically said that military tactics covers a very large range of things. How the fuck are they gonna all be covered in
paintball?
I'm going to fill in the blanks because I have to work with what is given.
Which
must mean that you are gonna go with the most negative option available, even when you have no evidence to support such a notion? Hiding behind the idea that in this instance, absence of proof contradicts the assertion?
If you've been on the internet for more than ten minutes, you know that the world is crawling with wanna-be GI Joes that know everything they ever read backwards and forwards.
I don't care about that portion of the internet.
The problem here is that you rely on this "experience" or "training" to make your point.
It wasn't anything close to a problem, unless you refer to the attraction certain elements on the internet have to such an idea.
But when asked where this experience or training comes from, you obfuscate.
I say I'm not at liberty to say. I have now informed you that if I were to, I'd loss a particular type of security clearance because I failed in my obligations, which I swore I'd uphold.
I'm not gonna risk my clearance just because a couple people on the internet got pissy and thought I was lying.
Your argument boils down to "accept me as an authority, because I say I am."
Wrong again. My argument boils down to 'accept what I'm saying is true or not. I don't give a fuck which you choose. I don't care.'
See? No obfuscation, no BS spin. I couldn't gather the strength to even attempt to fake caring about people believing.
You say you got this training, but it wasn't military, it wasn't just books or paintball, but you were in combat and men died. You say it wasn't part of a terrorist group or whatnot, so again, I'm left puzzling over where this vast knowledge comes from.
Fine, that isn't unexpected to be puzzled and just be puzzled. However, I'm also not surprised at the reaction both you and Kendall have shown.
The chances of being a DoD contracter are slim
Whatever.
Step out for a moment and think about how all this looks to someone else
I'm fully conscious of how this would appear to an outsider. I was aware longer before it was ever brought up here. The perceptions of others are not my responsibility. I gave up long ago on the desire for others to always agree with me.
-- hard-core leader of men whos tasted the bitter sting of death, etc.. never been in the military, though, and it's all stuff I can't talk about.
I'll probably get a warning for this, but it'll be worth it.
With this statement of yours, any hope I had that you actually had some brains rummaging around inside your melon is now utterly gone.
Do you see how that might have just a touch of melodrama to it?
Repeart after me, coyote: I don't give a shit.
Once again, I show no obfuscation. No BS spin. There is no way anyone ever can be or could be any more clear.
Dude, by even rationalizing a militia training accident I'm giving a lot of benefit of the doubt, here.
I've given Kendall the benefit of the doubt when he says he was in the Canadian army that he actually is or was in the canadian army, but I don't care if he was. I gave Wong the benefit of the doubt when I first heard he said he was an engineer and went to school and got a degree, but with him, I've see so much stupidity on his site, I've started having my doubts of just how much of an education he really got.
If you're calling what you've shown a benefit of a doubt, I'm flabbergasted.
Anyone else by now probably would have just shrugged and said "armchair commando" and shuffled off.
That's right, because there wouldn't actually be anyone that ever really had a security clearance of any kind that's involved in the debate. There wouldn't be people like that that wouldn't have been put in the position to agree to not give certain specifics and want to be in the debate.
That type of person wouldn't be caught dead in a versus debate and anyone who says they are...they've
got to be lying about it.
So, ladies and gentlepeoples...let me say it again: As far as if people think I'm just an armchair commando...I...Don't...Give...A...Fuck.
How about them apples? Is there any part of this that isn't clear?