- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is Vindman and what did he do?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:38 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I keep seeing Morrison in the reporting. Who is actually his supervisor?
Morrison. Miller was a typo.
0
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:39 am to AggieHank86
quote:In other words I need to build a scenario by which a LtCol can going outside of this duties to talk to a WB and a lawyer, brilliant!
Because I am examining the assertion that EVERY issue must be first addressed with a direct supervisor.
Either that “rule” is absolute, or it is not.
If it is absolute, so be it. If it is not absolute. then we start to examine more-analogous scenarios.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:40 am to AggieHank86
Its not logical when you have admitted that you had no idea how military chain of command works. So by continuing to give different situations you are embarrassing yourself because you obviously cannot understand the clear meaning of chain of. command
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:40 am to Godfather1
quote:
I think you’re just being willfully obtuse now. This has all been explained to you.
Yeah, but he didn’t get the answer he wanted.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:41 am to AggieHank86
quote:No one more time fool, she does not work for the military member she works for Raytheon.
The secretarial hypo strikes me as a near-perfect example of a situation in which this “rule” would be ridiculous to apply.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:43 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Either that “rule” is absolute, or it is not.
If it is absolute, so be it.
Fine.
IT IS ABSOLUTE.
If I’m Captain X assigned to Raytheon and I have a problem with a secretary, I inform MY DIRECT SUPERVISOR, Major Y that there is an issue. He then directs me to take the problem over to HR, where hopefully, it gets resolved.
If you skip the chain of command and go straight to Raytheon’s HR department, you’re acting on your own without your supervisor’s knowledge. And that’s not how things are done in the military. Raytheon themselves may have a problem with it. They’ll sure as hell consult with your supervisor and ask if he was kept in the loop. That may seem inefficient to you, but the fact is, it’s done that way FOR A REASON. There’s a lot of redundancy in the military, and trust me on this one, the reasons for it are solid. It actually prevents even more inefficiencies caused by SNAFUs.
You don’t want to step on toes and you always want to cover your arse. Is that plain enough for you?
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:47 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:44 am to Centinel
quote:it is not remotely disingenuous. It is a simple tool of logical analysis, employed by every lawyer in the country in every case they work on every day of the year.
Just drop it with the "simple HR question" bullshite. It's disingenuous and why people have their opinion of you that they do here.
One reasons from the general to the specific. The fact that you refuse to answer the general question leads me to believe that the “rule“ that you continue to cite is indeed not a general rule at all.
Your thought processes were molded by the military. Mine were molded by law school and many decades of legal practice. I am trying to understand yours. It seems odd that you are not making any effort to understand mine.
Even in a purely military situation, you seem to be telling me that a junior officer is required to go to his CO in order to get permission to go talk to the quartermaster, rather than going to the quartermaster and telling him he needs a new pair of boots. I’m sorry, but that strikes me is totally fricking insane. Again, my mind was not molded by the military. That may be exactly how it works.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:47 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:46 am to AggieHank86
Using the chain of command in its self is the " direct order". Its given on the 1st day of boot camp. There is no option to avoid the direct order of following chain of command. You should clearly understand that now.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:48 am to Godfather1
quote:Yes. Thank you for finally giving a direct answer.
You don’t want to step on toes and you always want to cover your arse. Is that plain enough for you?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:49 am to AggieHank86
If you are actually a atty then it's even more embarrassing that you are so naive that you cannot follow simple, clear explanations that have been provided to you. As a " supposedly attorney " the law ( chain of command) has been clearly outlined for you and now you know your client violated the law.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:50 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Yes. Thank you for finally giving a direct answer.
You’ve been getting direct answers all along. There’s just no real way to misconstrue what I said.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The fact that you refuse to answer the general question leads me to believe that the “rule“ that you continue to cite is indeed not a general rule at all.
Your question about a secretary isn't a general rule to the specific. You're trying to apply your specific to another specific.
You want to play the endless game of "what about this" and 'what about this' and I'm saying your "what abouts" do not apply to the subject at hand. A simple HR question is not the same, and in know way can be compared.
quote:
It seems odd that you are not making any effort to understand mine.
Oh frick off. Your only goal here is to try and play some game of gotcha.
If you insist on equating a simple HR question from a civilian employee to a US Army officer bringing up questions of political corruption at the highest levels, then this conversation is finished.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Even in a purely military situation, you seem to be telling me that a junior officer is required to go to his CO in order to get permission to go talk to the quartermaster, rather than going to the quartermaster and telling him he needs a new pair of boots. I’m sorry, but that strikes me is totally fricking insane. Again, my mind was not molded by the military. That may be exactly how it works.
Nobody "seems" to be telling you anything of the sort. You asked a question, you don't like the answers. And all of your word salads are ignoring the intent behind Vindman's actions; he didn't like what his CIC was doing and he wanted to thwart it.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:55 am to Flats
Years ago Vindman would have been called a traitor.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 11:02 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Years ago Vindman would have been called a traitor.
He's being called one now by a lot of people who wear the uniform.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 11:03 am to Flats
quote:Which is why LibbyHank is running this little game over the chain of command.
He's being called one now by a lot of people who wear the uniform.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 11:05 am to Centinel
You want a closer analogy. Let’s use one.
You are a brand new captain. Your major issues orders which you believe to be a direct violation of the UCMJ. You are concerned.
Are you required to confront your major, rather than consulting the JAG officer?
You are a brand new captain. Your major issues orders which you believe to be a direct violation of the UCMJ. You are concerned.
Are you required to confront your major, rather than consulting the JAG officer?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 11:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Are you required to confront your major, rather than consulting the JAG officer?
Who does the Major and I both work for?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 11:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are a brand new captain. Your major issues orders which you believe to be a direct violation of the UCMJ. You are concerned.
Are you required to confront your major, rather than consulting the JAG officer?
You advise your supervisor you are going to consult JAG.
I've already covered this.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 11:08 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You are a brand new captain. Your major issues orders which you believe to be a direct violation of the UCMJ. You are concerned.
Are you required to confront your major, rather than consulting the JAG officer?
You confront the major first. If he persists, you go to HIS supervisor.
Chain of command. You have covered your arse.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 11:09 am
Page 6 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News