GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

It was later shown that that rank in *given* based on the number of
years served.......a minimum rank.

You've got it backwards.

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

It was later shown that that rank in *given* based on the number of
years served.......a minimum rank.

You've got it backwards.


Does that surprise you?

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:30:59 -0400, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of
Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC,
STP. " wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

It was later shown that that rank in *given* based on the number of
years served.......a minimum rank.

You've got it backwards.


Does that surprise you?

It's shocking, who would have thought ?

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:30:59 -0400, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of
Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC,
STP. " wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

It was later shown that that rank in *given* based on the number of
years served.......a minimum rank.
You've got it backwards.

Does that surprise you?

It's shocking, who would have thought ?



Certainly not you or Reggie Yellowstreak.


--
No way, no how, no McCain!

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:42:59 -0400, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall,
Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. "
wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:28:13 -0400, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall,
Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. "
wrote:

BAR wrote:
Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall, Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P.
Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. wrote:
John H wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:09:09 -0400, "Earl of Warwich, Duke of Cornwall,
Marquies of Anglesea, Sir Reginald P. Smithers III Esq. LLC, STP. "
wrote:

John H wrote:

Oh, and unlike Herring, my friend is an officer and a gentlemen.
Herring is a horse's ass.
Herring got drafted. Did your friend?
yes, but could you handle a shovel?

Hey! As a matter of fact, I went to Engineer OCS. We learned all about
shovels...and det cord. Det cord is so cool.
Det cord is the way to dig ditches. I wonder if Jim's son knew OCS
was an option for a really creative way to get those ditch's dug.
If you score high enough on the various tests, it was the ASVAB when I
was in, you got to talk to the series commander about becoming an
officer.
I guess his score wasn't high enough.

Not much of a score is required for an Engineer Equipment Operator. Shovels
and 1.5KW generators don't require a lot of expertise.

What do you do with the 1.5kw gen?

I would love to use some of that det cord up on my mother's place to
clean up the back 40. Do you have any spare cord lying around? I
wonder if it would work as an easy way to till up her garden.

A 1.5 is what keeps the lights on in the tents.

Nope, sorry to say I used the last of my det cord while visiting a
southeast Asia country. You might try filling a garden hose with C-4. The
effect should be even better.

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

http://tinyurl.com/o42at

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:23:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

It was later shown that that rank in *given* based on the number of
years served.......a minimum rank.

You've got it backwards.

I said nothing earlier because the statements were in the ball park as far
as time and rank went. But, Army officers are promoted based on their
efficiency ratings, which happen to be reviewed at intervals based on the
needs of the Army. If officers are being used up quickly, or the Army is
expanding, the time interval will be short. If the service is drawing down,
the time interval will be longer.

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

On Aug 27, 5:47*pm, JimH wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:32*pm, jim wrote:

hk wrote:

All snipped.

It's heartwarming to know that the leader of the girlie hug and pat
society, AKA Harry Krause, leader of Don and Jim H, has come out of the
closet to be recognized as who and what he is.

All followers of Harry who wish to contribute to his favorite charity
should make their honorariums at the following web page.

http://www.famousdeaddb.com/tiny-tim/

Someone said a member here should be respected because he retired as a
LtCol with the Army.

It was later shown that that rank in *given* based on the number of
years served.......a minimum rank.

OK.......he has my respect up for serving. *But that rank is respected
until that LtCol acts in a way (here or anywhere) to show he does not
deserve that respect.

We are at that point.

Damn you are stupid, you've got it backwards......again.....

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:58:28 -0400, John H wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:23:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

It was later shown that that rank in *given* based on the number of
years served.......a minimum rank.

You've got it backwards.

I said nothing earlier because the statements were in the ball park as far
as time and rank went. But, Army officers are promoted based on their
efficiency ratings, which happen to be reviewed at intervals based on the
needs of the Army. If officers are being used up quickly, or the Army is
expanding, the time interval will be short. If the service is drawing down,
the time interval will be longer.

Needs of the Army, needs of the Navy.
Same thing. Just as I passed the E-5 exam the Navy bumped subsequent
service needed to attain that rank to 12 months, so since I had only 9
months left I would need to do a 3 month extension to make E-5.
I left 9 months later as an E-4.

--Vic

GOOD MORNING COASTIES!!!
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:58:28 -0400, John H wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:23:46 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT), JimH
wrote:

It was later shown that that rank in *given* based on the number of
years served.......a minimum rank.

You've got it backwards.

I said nothing earlier because the statements were in the ball park as far
as time and rank went. But, Army officers are promoted based on their
efficiency ratings, which happen to be reviewed at intervals based on the
needs of the Army. If officers are being used up quickly, or the Army is
expanding, the time interval will be short. If the service is drawing
down,
the time interval will be longer.

Needs of the Army, needs of the Navy.
Same thing. Just as I passed the E-5 exam the Navy bumped subsequent
service needed to attain that rank to 12 months, so since I had only 9
months left I would need to do a 3 month extension to make E-5.
I left 9 months later as an E-4.



You mean you never got "frocked"?

Eisboch
--Vic