Doug Kanter wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message news:OZxhc.2126


http://www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html

You know, the silly thing about all this records flap is that some of the
records are meaningless if you don't know how to interpret them.

Take the Fitness Reports, for example. In one article I read, the

reporter

was absolutely atwitter over the fact that one or two of Kerry's superior
officers commented on his exemplary use of the English language, how
generally well spoken he was, and his overall bearing and demeanor.

Here's

a guy who was raised in a home where English was properly spoken, and then
spent most of his life at a Swiss boarding school, St. Paul's, and Yale.

In

the early sixties, he was for a while dating Jackie Kennedy's half sister,
and was a regular, with the Kennedys, at the Bouvier "cottage" in Newport.


My background was nothing like that, but I can still speak the native
language of this country more proficiently than your president. Why is that?



Most of the union guys I know, guys my age who never had the
opportunities college offers and who worked physical labor for 40 years,
also speak English better than Bush. And read it better, too.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Most of the union guys I know, guys my age who never had the
opportunities college offers and who worked physical labor for 40 years,
also speak English better than Bush. And read it better, too.

This is even spookier: All the news sources interview people from China and
other countries whose languages are as much like English as potatoes are
like celery. They all surpass Bush in their command of our language. The
sheep here will respond that the news media CHOOSE people to interview based
on their ability to communicate, but that's a silly argument. I don't care
if someone from Beijing had the richest parents on earth and attended all
the best schools. They still grew up in Beijing, while Bush grew up (?)
here. What a joke.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

You two make a great M.A.S.

You need no input from the rest.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message news:OZxhc.2126

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html

You know, the silly thing about all this records flap is that some of the
records are meaningless if you don't know how to interpret them.

snip

The other thing about FitReps that bears understanding is the fact that they
were not necessarily objective. In the military of the fifties and sixties,
and into the seventies, any evaluative mark less than "outstanding" was a
potential career breaker. A rating of Excellent to Outstanding could have
meant that you were Excellent to Outstanding, or it could have meant that,
while not particularly valuable, you were a nice guy to have around, and
were not a danger to anyone.

I was discussing this with my wife as the same thing happened in the
80s. When I was in the Air Force, airman performance reports had
rating from 1 to 9. "9" being the top. I don't recall how many
catagories there were but getting all 9s was pretty much the norm. It
was not uncommon in my unit for supervisor to have an APR sent back if
he/she gave a subordanate more the one "8" on an APR. Nobody I ever
worked with, got a 7 anywhere.

Contrast that to reviews we do in the large corporate environment
where I work now. We have "DN" Does not meet requirements, "IN"
Imrpovement needed, "M" Meets expectations, "VE" Very Effective, and
"E" Exceeds Expectations. If you show up for work and do you job
you'll get all "M"s from me. When I as in the Air Force that would
get you "all nines" (which was not uncommon at all).