On 1/14/2014 10:06 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander) should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

Obviously you don't understand how the Navy chain of command works.



No I don't... But imagine how cool it would be if you would educate
us... When a ship is out in service, who is responsible for the safety
of the crews? For the sake of argument lets say, the reports of
contaminated drinking water are true, who is it that should have been
watching for that, surely it's not the corporation or country we are
going to help??


The Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.

On 1/15/2014 12:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 10:06 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander)
should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

Obviously you don't understand how the Navy chain of command works.



No I don't... But imagine how cool it would be if you would educate
us... When a ship is out in service, who is responsible for the safety
of the crews? For the sake of argument lets say, the reports of
contaminated drinking water are true, who is it that should have been
watching for that, surely it's not the corporation or country we are
going to help??


The Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

No I didn't

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.



Completely irrelevant to the question I asked which was simply, if so,
"who is responsible"?

Please read again... I never assumed either. I simply stated an opinion,
that you questioned, mocked, and then I asked a question. You are the
only one assuming anything...

On 1/15/2014 1:13 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 10:06 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander)
should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

Obviously you don't understand how the Navy chain of command works.



No I don't... But imagine how cool it would be if you would educate
us... When a ship is out in service, who is responsible for the safety
of the crews? For the sake of argument lets say, the reports of
contaminated drinking water are true, who is it that should have been
watching for that, surely it's not the corporation or country we are
going to help??


The Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

No I didn't

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.



Completely irrelevant to the question I asked which was simply, if so,
"who is responsible"?

Please read again... I never assumed either. I simply stated an opinion,
that you questioned, mocked, and then I asked a question. You are the
only one assuming anything...


You stated (above) that the "Force Command" (whatever that is) is
responsible for the safety of the "Force" (whatever that is) and in a
previous post questioned the lack of monitoring of radioactivity on the
carrier insinuating that the only data relied upon was that provided by
Japan. You then stated that "it's on the "Force Command" which I
interpret as being your conclusion that whatever problems crew members
are reporting are due to "Force Command" failures.

I simply disagreed with you, mainly because you don't have a clue what
you are talking about.

It's hard sometimes to decipher many of your comments and they can
certainly be misunderstood. It's too bad that you feel you are being
"mocked" just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and
hastily derived conclusions.

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:11:07 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:

It's hard sometimes to decipher many of your comments and they can

certainly be misunderstood. It's too bad that you feel you are being

"mocked" just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and

hastily derived conclusions.

And it's too bad you're a stupid **** who keeps responding to your new master, krause.

SMARTEN THE **** UP.

On 1/15/2014 2:11 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/15/2014 1:13 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 10:06 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander)
should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

Obviously you don't understand how the Navy chain of command works.



No I don't... But imagine how cool it would be if you would educate
us... When a ship is out in service, who is responsible for the safety
of the crews? For the sake of argument lets say, the reports of
contaminated drinking water are true, who is it that should have been
watching for that, surely it's not the corporation or country we are
going to help??


The Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

No I didn't

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.



Completely irrelevant to the question I asked which was simply, if so,
"who is responsible"?

Please read again... I never assumed either. I simply stated an opinion,
that you questioned, mocked, and then I asked a question. You are the
only one assuming anything...


You stated (above) that the "Force Command" (whatever that is) is
responsible for the safety of the "Force" (whatever that is) and in a
previous post questioned the lack of monitoring of radioactivity on the
carrier insinuating that the only data relied upon was that provided by
Japan. You then stated that "it's on the "Force Command" which I
interpret as being your conclusion that whatever problems crew members
are reporting are due to "Force Command" failures.

I simply disagreed with you, mainly because you don't have a clue what
you are talking about.

It's hard sometimes to decipher many of your comments and they can
certainly be misunderstood. It's too bad that you feel you are being
"mocked" just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and
hastily derived conclusions.



You are just looking to irritate.. Sorry I keep forgetting why you are
here....

On 1/15/2014 7:22 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/15/2014 2:11 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/15/2014 1:13 AM, KC wrote:
On 1/15/2014 12:07 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/14/2014 10:06 PM, KC wrote:
On 1/14/2014 6:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Reasonable, but I still think the "Force Command" (not commander)
should
be responsible for the safety of the Force....

Obviously you don't understand how the Navy chain of command works.



No I don't... But imagine how cool it would be if you would educate
us... When a ship is out in service, who is responsible for the safety
of the crews? For the sake of argument lets say, the reports of
contaminated drinking water are true, who is it that should have been
watching for that, surely it's not the corporation or country we are
going to help??


The Commanding Officer has the responsibility.

You are assuming that:

1. He didn't do what he was supposed to do and:
2. The lawsuit filed has any merit.

No I didn't

I repeat again ... to date the Navy, the CO, any of his crew members or
any of his superiors have *not* been named in the lawsuit.



Completely irrelevant to the question I asked which was simply, if so,
"who is responsible"?

Please read again... I never assumed either. I simply stated an opinion,
that you questioned, mocked, and then I asked a question. You are the
only one assuming anything...


You stated (above) that the "Force Command" (whatever that is) is
responsible for the safety of the "Force" (whatever that is) and in a
previous post questioned the lack of monitoring of radioactivity on the
carrier insinuating that the only data relied upon was that provided by
Japan. You then stated that "it's on the "Force Command" which I
interpret as being your conclusion that whatever problems crew members
are reporting are due to "Force Command" failures.

I simply disagreed with you, mainly because you don't have a clue what
you are talking about.

It's hard sometimes to decipher many of your comments and they can
certainly be misunderstood. It's too bad that you feel you are being
"mocked" just because someone doesn't agree with your opinions and
hastily derived conclusions.



You are just looking to irritate.. Sorry I keep forgetting why you are
here....

Boys...Boys...Boys. Play nice. It's obvious there's just a little
misunderstanding here. Some don't understand what force and force
command means as it applies to this situation. I think I read somewhere
that the on board radioactivity monitoring equipment wasn't operating at
the onset of this mission. One has to wonder if not, why not?