|
Stultus Maximus posted:If someone has a BMI over 30 and doesn't look like Arnie at competition, they're a fatty. No poo poo? A bmi of thirty is way bigger than twenty two though so...?
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:19 |
|
PneumonicBook posted:I had the option to replace the words but they would have had to go get new paperwork and it was ten minutes until my reenlistment so I just said gently caress it. It's actually not for no reason--the actual portion of US Law that governs enlistment and the enlistment oath does not have provisions for omitting the religious elements, but as of yet, no one has brought a legal case up about it to change it. The Air Force's new regulations are simply coming into alignment with the actual law. The option to affirm the oath rather than swearing it also, apparently, doesn't exist. If you wanted to get super technical about it, anyone in the last several years that affirmed their oath or omitted the final portion may not actually be legally enlisted as the law requires. Good luck with that court case, though.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:No poo poo? Where is 22 from? At my height, just to get taped I'd have to have a BMI over 27.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Octopode posted:It's actually not for no reason--the actual portion of US Law that governs enlistment and the enlistment oath does not have provisions for omitting the religious elements, but as of yet, no one has brought a legal case up about it to change it. The Air Force's new regulations are simply coming into alignment with the actual law. The option to affirm the oath rather than swearing it also, apparently, doesn't exist. Huh. Well I suppose if you're an atheist commie bastard you don't deserve to serve these great United States.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Where is 22 from? At my height, just to get taped I'd have to have a BMI over 27. I thought 22 was what the max bmi for males under forty was. I mean it goes height, then you get a max weight you can be from that. That doesn't actually give you a bmi, that's what the tapes for. I thought? I guess you could extrapolate a bmi from height/weight but is probably not accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:I thought 22 was what the max bmi for males under forty was. 22 is maximum body fat %, not BMI. BMI is calculated from height/weight, body fat from the tape.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:22 is maximum body fat %, not BMI. BMI is calculated from height/weight, body fat from the tape. Oh okay that makes sense. Oops!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Octopode posted:It's actually not for no reason--the actual portion of US Law that governs enlistment and the enlistment oath does not have provisions for omitting the religious elements, but as of yet, no one has brought a legal case up about it to change it. The Air Force's new regulations are simply coming into alignment with the actual law. The option to affirm the oath rather than swearing it also, apparently, doesn't exist. I actually went and looked up the relevant section in the USC. It's true. Interestingly enough, it was amended in 1962 to include the words, "So help me God" - likely in response to the evils of communism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Additionally it does allow you to affirm or swear In the official USC. All of the other branches have the option for modification and I bet there's a DOD memo somewhere that says to do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 23:01
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Additionally it does allow you to affirm or swear In the official USC. All of the other branches have the option for modification and I bet there's a DOD memo somewhere that says to do it. Whoops, you're right, option to affirm is there, but option to omit So help me God is not.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Boon posted:In other news, our friends over in the USAF continue to be the vanguard of the US' god-fearing crusaders of righteousness wing of the US armed forces I'm moderately sure that this coming up in real life as a thing that gets people in trouble / keeps people from (re)enlisting is bullshit. Basing that on that either every media organization reporting it has been bullshit, it's all been third-hand stories filtered through American Airmen For Atheism or similar, or both. I mean it's fun to mock the USAF for it but it whiffs of not really being real.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Also if you can't handle pushing out something that sounds like the words 'so help me god' to get that sweet sweet re-enlistment check in your hands, you're probably a Commie or the next Brianna Manning anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
I will only say: "so help me gosh"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:Leave Sailor Bob out of this. Every policy change by the Navy has a host of old captains and commanders come out of the woodwork to bitch about how stupid everything is, and how the old navy was better at everything on that site. De-couple yourself from your SWO mentality for just a second ("it will directly cost the Navy $0 to implement"). How many commands *actually* breathalyze people as they walk up the brow these days? - there's a program we've spent millions on doing exactly fuckall. This program *will* cost money in the big scheme of things. Just because there's no direct cost doesn't mean it won't have mission impact and overall cost the government money. You have to consider the secondary and tertiary effects, not only the immediate benefits (loving millenials! kidding, kidding). This is rampant post-war good idea-fairyism at its best. If the Navy wants to force shape, then loving force shape via retention boards...don't take the passive-aggressive way out. It's almost like we have an eval/FITREP system for exactly that purpose... This *will* cost the Navy time *and* money - in terms of both man-hours and productivity. Keep reading the draft instruction, they're requiring commands to up the minimum number of hours of mandatory PT per week which will be another time/workday suck, and they're making it and inspectable program as well. That poo poo will equate to actual, tangible dollars and will have a real impact on the fleet. It's ridiculous ideas ideas like these that get kicked around at some random OPNAV brainstorming session full of O5s desperate for their bird that are going to continue to cause us to hemorrhage good people who are tired of the bullshit. This is likely just a part of the post-war sinosodial ramp-down, but still, it's a silly, convoluted way of implementing a reduction in forces. And sailorbob isn't just a bunch of random retired dudes. *Many* flags lurk those boards and several of them post regularly. A *lot* of the O5s/O6s on there are in command, major command, or immediate post-major command. Yea, there are a couple of old coots on there who get their panties in a wad and wax nostalgic but a lot of the folks on those boards have pretty good connections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:I will only say: "so help me gosh"  SO HELP ME GIANT FLYING SPAGHETTI WIZARD BECAUSE THAT'S JUST AS REAL AS YOUR IMAGINARY CRUTCH XTIAN G*D
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
LOL. SailorBob himself was my DeptHead in 2002. Good dude. Last I knew he was working for SecNav in DC. So, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:I will only say: "so help me gosh" I said "so help me." Guess I'm actually not enlisted anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
buttplug posted:De-couple yourself from your SWO mentality for just a second ("it will directly cost the Navy $0 to implement"). How many commands *actually* breathalyze people as they walk up the brow these days? - there's a program we've spent millions on doing exactly fuckall. This program *will* cost money in the big scheme of things. Just because there's no direct cost doesn't mean it won't have mission impact and overall cost the government money. You have to consider the secondary and tertiary effects, not only the immediate benefits (loving millenials! kidding, kidding). Bro, calm down. I agree with you that there are secondary, tertiary, even n-ary costs associated with the program and that it's incredibly stupid overall. However comma the only costs the Navy actually gives a gently caress about when it comes to these programs is the direct cost. The ones all of those GS MBA's we pay to cook our books can track in a spread sheet. My point being that this random BCA idea has $0 of direct outlay. We have to purchase zero new widgets and hire zero new people to actually do it. I bring up the breathalyzers because it's essentially the same decision making process. On one hand you have a pet peeve, or "good idea", from someone of authority, and in the other you have the amount of money the Navy as an organization has to write on a check with that program's name on it. If the Navy is willing to pay millions of dollars for a breathalyzer program that is orders of magnitude dumber and less necessary then random BCAs, what makes you think that they won't move forward with a program that has no impact to the budget? (See also: Navy PT gear, NWU/NSU, etc) Also, I've been on Sailor Bob for over a decade. I'm well aware the population of that forum. Hell I once had an admiral on there quote one of my posts to disagree with me on something. My point is that in my decade of membership of that forum, there have been precisely zero times when the sentiment of the senior members of that forum have influenced a single decision made by big Navy. You can disagree all you want, but all you have to do is look at any thread related to the CQE, Breathalyzer, a sketchy CO relief, or JO retention to realize that Big Navy or even Big SWO give exactly zero fucks about what Sailor Bob thinks. ManMythLegend fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
buttplug posted:De-couple yourself from your SWO mentality for just a second ("it will directly cost the Navy $0 to implement"). How many commands *actually* breathalyze people as they walk up the brow these days? - there's a program we've spent millions on doing exactly fuckall. This program *will* cost money in the big scheme of things. Just because there's no direct cost doesn't mean it won't have mission impact and overall cost the government money. You have to consider the secondary and tertiary effects, not only the immediate benefits (loving millenials! kidding, kidding). It's you man, you're the most SWO non-current SWO I've ever interacted with. My personal opinion on it is that you shouldn't be able to earn an EP without at least an excellent on the PFA (or a waiver) and if you get an outstanding it's worth something (extra points for advancement?). Simply saying "don't you dare fail this or else!" while not incentivizing anything past the bare minimum is loving monumentally stupid. Boon fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:The ones all of those GS MBA's we pay to cook our books can track in a spread sheet. as one of these this is exactly what it comes down to edit: which in turn becomes about how good it looks on someone's OER ex: trf/nsy consolidation
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Boon posted:It's you man, you're the most SWO non-current SWO I've ever interacted with. Me giving people on these boards for over a decade notwithstanding, I'm not even close to buying into the SWO mentality. Hell, I haven't even drank the Navy kool-aid. I generally still find myself disagreeing with or going against the grain on a good majority of the decisions we make because they're stupid, fruitless, and knee-jerk at best. That being said, MML you're more or less right, I can't point to any direct effect SB has had on any Big Navy decisions over the years, not gonna argue that one...but that still doesn't make it any less obnoxious of an idea. I just don't understand why we have to skirt around issues. If the Navy needs a reduction in force, hold retention boards and poo poo-can some dead weight. Why bother jumping through the hoops of [slowly] force-shaping by dramatically altering the PFA on a whim? Because the CNO likes to run marathons? That's loving retarded. We're taking the 15 mile scenic route to walk down the block.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
I just need 1.7 more years of cheap healthcare then you guys can require a 30 inch waist for all I care. Just let me keep that sweet, sweet Tricare for a few more months.............
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Boon posted:My personal opinion on it is that you shouldn't be able to earn an EP without at least an excellent on the PFA (or a waiver) and if you get an outstanding it's worth something (extra points for advancement?). Simply saying "don't you dare fail this or else!" while not incentivizing anything past the bare minimum is loving monumentally stupid. This. But this is like writing a diet book that says "eat less, exercise more." It won't make enough of an impact. signed, a card carrying member of the 24 minutes a month club after having 2 kids and realizing I'll never be good at curl ups again. I get a good. every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
buttplug posted:Me giving people on these boards for over a decade notwithstanding, I'm not even close to buying into the SWO mentality. Hell, I haven't even drank the Navy kool-aid. I generally still find myself disagreeing with or going against the grain on a good majority of the decisions we make because they're stupid, fruitless, and knee-jerk at best. Oh yeah, it's totally obnoxious and stupid, and further erodes any trust the fleet has in it's chain of comman. I wish we could just have a board to trim the fat (heh), but unfortunately the Navy already painted itself into a corner by saying that there will be no more Retention Boards. A statement it had to make because it cocked that whole debacle up pretty royally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Boon posted:It's you man, you're the most SWO non-current SWO I've ever interacted with. jesus dude that's harsh. I mean, being a years-long Sailor Bob regular is pretty loving SWO but MML is at least pleasant to interact with usually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:jesus dude that's harsh. Regular might be a stretch...
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
I was talking about buttplug though 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
Boon posted:I was talking about buttplug though And I'm drunk so I didn't notice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Really, I loving love bourbon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:Oh yeah, it's totally obnoxious and stupid, and further erodes any trust the fleet has in it's chain of comman. I wish we could just have a board to trim the fat (heh), but unfortunately the Navy already painted itself into a corner by saying that there will be no more Retention Boards. A statement it had to make because it cocked that whole debacle up pretty royally. Here's a good place to start: Obviously, cutting a couple GOFOs isn't going to solve the problem directly (negligible number moving for those GS MBA types), but the level of good-idea fairyism and stupid hairbrained ideas will probably decrease. Current GOFOs may have to actually and trim fatty defense contracts (no shortage there) instead of pawning them off on some other senior officer to bastardize even further until he/she clasps their next star. I'm all for doing more with less *when its done right*. If we can do with less indians, we can certainly do with fewer chiefs as well.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Reminds me of the income inequality, wage gap, and education opportunity gaps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
buttplug posted:Here's a good place to start: Welp, good to know the old boys club is dead!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
It'll be funny when the only people still in are all the old fart flag officers and they have to do all the bitch work the enlisted used to do. Maybe I can pitch this as a sitcom. I'll call it Navy All-Stars. Can't be any worse than The Last Ship. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Mad Dragon posted:It'll be funny when the only people still in are all the old fart flag officers and they have to do all the bitch work the enlisted used to do. Death by Administration!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
can't be any different from a sub, where 3/4 of the crew is e-5 and above
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Boon posted:My personal opinion on it is that you shouldn't be able to earn an EP without at least an excellent on the PFA (or a waiver) and if you get an outstanding it's worth something (extra points for advancement?). Simply saying "don't you dare fail this or else!" while not incentivizing anything past the bare minimum is loving monumentally stupid. Speaking as a cranky civilian with fading memory of sub life, I can assure you that a PFA excellent or outstanding mean gently caress all for the vast majority of technical and engineering jobs, and boosting promotion candidates based on their body fat or run speed instead of technical expertise or leadership merit is a recipe for disaster. We're not monkey Marines and our job isn't to haul 100 lbs of armor and SAW around all day, we need to be promoting based on who can track maintenance most effectively, gently caress it up the least, keep the plant running etc. The focus on physical appearance is bizarre taken in combination with increased sea time and longer deployments that keep sailors inside the hatches all that much more of their enlistment, and the latter should be way, way more of a concern than the former.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Speaking as a cranky civilian with fading memory of sub life, I can assure you that a PFA excellent or outstanding mean gently caress all for the vast majority of technical and engineering jobs, and boosting promotion candidates based on their body fat or run speed instead of technical expertise or leadership merit is a recipe for disaster. We're not monkey Marines and our job isn't to haul 100 lbs of armor and SAW around all day, we need to be promoting based on who can track maintenance most effectively, gently caress it up the least, keep the plant running etc. It's all important though and physical fitness should be encouraged for a wide number of reasons. Further, rewarding fitness (as if an excellent is difficult to come by for a healthy individual) would do little to break an advancement system that is based on such stupid rules as "You are an outstanding sailor who has turned this Department/Division/Workcenter around but you're going to be ranked low because you just got here and you need to show growth" Besides, some day we will actually take a hit where DC does matter and if I had to depend on someone to drag my rear end out of a space it sure wouldn't be FC3 McFatfuck no matter how good he is at keeping his system functioning. Boon fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
The only thing likely to hit a sub is a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
You don't need to get shot at to have a casualty, but this thread has hit on this multiple times, that the pushups/situps/run have negligible correlation to either your ability to carry an injured man out of a space, or be carried yourself - especially when you can be shrimpy as gently caress or heavy as hell based on height. Now if they replace the run with the 100m Fatass Chief Drag While In FFE, including at least one ladder and watertight door, then maybe I'll see it differently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
The biggest fitness problem currently facing the information dominance community is what we should order form Arby's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 06:58
|
|