Myths of the Vietnam War exposed

[Tousi]

Are we getting dizzy yet?

Leibling, everything Reba said about "low level" is absolutely correct!

Excuse me, I have a low level cold and sore throat and am going to retire for the night.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Are we getting dizzy yet?

Leibling, everything Reba said about "low level" is absolutely correct!

Excuse me, I have a low level cold and sore throat and am going to retire for the night.

You think Reba is correct then is your opinion. I know what I am saying because I work for US Army and never see anyone use those word like that.

Don´t compare your cold and sore throat with solider´s position. Anyway, wish you better.

 

[Tousi]

You think Reba is correct then is your opinion. I know what I am saying because I work for US Army and never see anyone use those word like that.

Don´t compare your cold and sore throat with solider´s position. Anyway, wish you better.

No, you're wrong and stubborn; mine is not an opinion. Your problem is with understanding some of the subtler nuances of the English language, simple as that.

Btw, you owe Jenni an apology as well for many of the same reasons. I will not carry this further with you because I know what you will do. GN and btw, the reference to my cold is is accurate and in no way an insult to our men in uniform; I was just giving you another example of the many ways one can say things in English. Again, GN, fraulein.

 

[Jiro]

Liebling - I think you're being overly-sensitive in this matter. When it comes to testimony, investigation, or news.... we do use "high-ranking" or "low-ranking" to signify & to clarify the importance of one's role in the organization. For example.... let's look at some current events -

1. High-ranking Taliban commander killed
2. No. 2 police officer in Mexican border city shot (in the paragraph - it said "the latest high-ranking official killed")
3. Rice presses the UN to act on Zimbabwe violence (scroll bottom - it said "French Human Rights Minister Rama Yade, another of the high-ranking female government officials who attended the meeting")

and when you talk to public - it is natural for someone to try to sound important like "I was a Staff Officer." That title alone can be easily misunderstood as a man of importance in military. But he went too far and politicized this issue so it's his fault for creating this mess. Timberlake had to point out that he was a low-level staff officer with no commanding authority and had absolutely no role/influence/etc. in bombing at all. Because of that - Plummer's credibility is shot down.

Obviously - when it comes to testimony/news/investigations... a high-ranking person carries bigger weight. For example, we listen to Surgeon General for advice or his opinion on issues instead of listening to his intern. why? because Surgeon General is a high ranking doctor and therefore his words are more credible and carries more weight than his intern's words.

So yea you're being overly sensitive. "low-level" or "high-level" is a more accurate description of one's position in the organization - it is nothing insulting or diminishing.

 

[Reba]

Did Plummer said that he was a low level staff officer? No, he said that he was a staff officer.

He also said a lot of things that weren't true.

Do you not understand that "low level", "mid level", and "senior level" staff members are all staff members? The various levels show who reports to whom. How do you know your chain of command if you don't know which level you and the others are in? Each lower level reports to the next higher level.

Do you not have an organization chart for your command? Every military command uses an organization chart to show how the various levels of responsibility are related.

Yes, it´s your opinoin to use those word "low level" is okay, not for me.

Just to ensure that I wasn't hallucinating, I asked Hubby about this "low level" thing. He worked in Navy administration, with officers of all levels, in various commands, ashore and afloat. He found it quite humorous that anyone would have a problem with the term "low level staff". He thought I must be kidding him.

you compared school with army? Huh? We called each other our first name and call our teacher Mr., Mrs. or Miss., not LTC., MAJ., SGT., COL.

Again, you don't understand the concept of using analogies to clarify the picture. I wasn't comparing schools to the army. I was comparing the concept of levels of position. Sorry that it blew over your head.

Duty and private is separate. I thought you know it?

What on earth are you talking about? I was talking about ranks. A private is the lowest rank/rate in the Army, and a general is the highest rank. A seaman recruit is the lowest rank/rate in the Navy, and an admiral is the highest rank. Get it?

I noticed you compared different things in your post. It make no sense. My point is "low level", not compare with different things. We use George Bush Jr. because his father was a president. It´s accurate.

I hoped that by showing you various examples that it would be easier for you to understand. My mistake.

Anyway, George W. Bush is not a junior because his father's name is not exactly the same--he's George H. W. Bush. So you are inaccurate about that. So they are not junior and senior. Also, "junior" and "senior" have nothing to do with presidents. It merely shows the birth order--seniors are born before juniors.

This is your opinion over those word "low level".

It has nothing to do with "opinion." It has to do with accuracy of fact.

Yes, I am. If you doubt then is your choice.

The only reason I questioned that was because you seem to know so little about military chain of command and terminology.

The fact is we do not use those word "Low level staff officer" but SGT Officer.

I feel like screaming. I say again, "low level staff member" is NOT A TITLE OR RANK--IT IS A JOB POSITION. SERGEANT IS AN ENLISTED RATE/RANK--IT IS NOT A JOB POSITION. A sergeant is not a commissioned officer; a sergeant is a non-commissioned ("non-com") officer. In the Navy we use the term "petty officer."

We know their paygrade and which title thru insignia on their uniforms. So?

You don't call people "E1" or "O4"; you call them by their rate or rank and name.

Yes, I know.. so? I only tell you what I know their titles thru insignia on their uniforms and don´t use those word "low level" to them but use those word to them is SGT, LTC, MAJ, COL, ...

Someone help me, PLEASE!

Again, I say, "low level" is a description of job position; it is NOT someone's title.

I think you twist my word. We call them SGT what it written on them office desk. :roll: I never see any word on their desk. "Low Level Staff Officer surname" but SGT surname, LTC surname, COL surname, ......

(Lord, give me strength.)

"Low level" is not a title; it's a job position description.

Are sergeants the only enlisted Army personnel that you know? Do you ever meet any privates or corporals?

I find interesting that you see "SGT Officer or surname " as an offensive which we doesn´t but we see "low level Staff Officer" as an offensive, you doesn´t. SGT is on their desk or office door...

I have NEVER said that "sergeant" or an officer rank or someone's surname is offensive. NEVER!! Military people are proud of their rates and ranks. Using an incorrect rate or rank can be offensive. Calling someone "sergeant" if he or she is not a sergeant is inconsiderate, just like calling someone the wrong name.

Sorry to say that your post make no sense.

That's because one needs to use logic to understand.

What I stand what I think of those word "Low Level", period. We use each other our first names in office without see what position they have. We know what title they have thru their uniform with their name... and insignia.

I never would have imagined that one little phrase could become such a big misunderstood deal. :roll:

See? You think you know everything... Okay, I am a liar and do not work for US Army and know nothing about soliders. Satisfy?

I'm not saying that you lie. I'm just saying that it's weird that you don't seem to know much about military rates, ranks, chain of command, and terminology, after working for them so many years.

Of course I know. So? I only explain about our difference view on coward and low level because I see them as an offensive which you doesn´t. (You do not see "low level" as an offensive and other ADer (re-read my post to Jiro123) do not see "coward" as an offensive).

I didn't use the word "coward", so I don't know why you bring that up. "Coward" and "low level staff" have absolutely nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with each other.

The problem is you can´t get it. Is Plummer a liar if he said that he was a Staff Officer, not low level staff officer?

In the context of trying to deceive people, yes.

 

[Reba]

Are we getting dizzy yet?

Leibling, everything Reba said about "low level" is absolutely correct!

Excuse me, I have a low level cold and sore throat and am going to retire for the night.

Aww, take care. Try some hot tea and honey.

 

[Reba]

I might have to lock myself out of my own thread, just to get it back on topic. The topic is much more important than my personal posts.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Btw, you owe Jenni an apology as well for many of the same reasons. I will not carry this further with you because I know what you will do. GN and btw, the reference to my cold is is accurate and in no way an insult to our men in uniform; I was just giving you another example of the many ways one can say things in English. Again, GN, fraulein.

Why should I owe Jenni an apology when I want an answer, not comparison/anlogy?

Why can't you tell Jenni to apology Jazzy ?


:roll:

 

[~SG~]

Mod's note:
Thread's is closed, as I'm on Sidekick I will inform mods to check this thread out.