17D_guy

This was an actual intro used by some of my classmates in ASBC (minus shoeclerks.. because no one knows what that is outside flying mostly). No lie. In fact, I would only add the line to the end: "This isn't important and my CC told me so."

Did her support when she came to JFCC-Space/14 AF. No positive experiences. Lots of frustration, twisted thinking, and wanting the best but not willing to pay for anything. The support staff loved Gen James, and within a week looked ragged and beat down. Now that I'm at her old assignment, same stories are passed around here.

Where was his bystander at? Shouldn't we charge that individual with a crime too?

How does that even happen...

Damnit... actually had his (Welch) son as a Sq CC in Germany, so I gets all confused.

So Does Welch Gen Mark A. Welsh III get credit for this or are we going to shit all over him still for not doing anything good? Also... the board process for O3 was so much fun. If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for the up-and-comers - just like AAD as a Lt, and SOS-in-res. EDIT: For grapejuice

More?

Stay safe guys

People are still posting about this?

Review your ASBC notes

I viewed this as, "He's not going anywhere for awhile, we'll just continue building the case. When he's cognizant and talking (call for a lawyer) we'll charge him." I don't really have a problem with that. If he was in a cell, I would.

Cool, I'll wait for that AFI CSAF writes to fix everything. Perhaps he can just release it in MFR format. Hell.. I bet this Vector thing will fix it all since it's so easy being the guy on "top".

I don't feel like reading through the brick of text he posted in reply since it started with him not even reviewing all the FOIA info, or even the Gen's letter. Especially since the poster said a victim's testimony should be enough to convict. If you're cool with that...

Truth.

You heard it here first: Large organizational cultural change is easy and just requires the guy at the "top" to say what to do.

Wat? Copy, you've never dealt with bat-shit crazy females. Was selected for jury duty in a domestic abuse case. Got to the interview portion and Prosecution asked if I believed a woman would lie about being abused. Chuckled, said yes, was excused. I was firmly on your side until I read the Gen's letter and perused the FOIA docs (finals week for the Master's...got no time). When the friend she had take her to the hospital called her a liar and asked for clemency for the LtCol I almost vomited. EDIT to add No, the jury was shown chopped video of the LtCol's interview. There were other bits of evidence not allowed either.

FTFY.

I don't know if it's a support thing, but at least in the Comm Sq it's pretty common.

So by clarifying.. she said the exact same thing again and in a worse manner.

Guess I shouldn't be working on my Cyber stuff since I can't get a title right. Only time corrected in 14 years.. guess I've had a lot of dirt bag Sergeants.

Sigh... I no kidding had a black SMSgt tell me not to call him 'Senior' because, "We don't call MSgt Master do we? That would be racist." Sometimes I hate it here.

Just the fact that there's more communication directed at the AF from him is different. Sure the vector is late in coming, but I'm sure he's just lounging around not doing anything. I mean, he is the CSAF he can do anything he wants immediately according to you guys. Hell, it took Gen Hobbins awhile to unscrew Foglesong's nonsense. Combat Proud anyone?

I really think the "terrorist cell" idea is really suited for cyber stuff from our AF Nerds. Little pockets doing their own thing with a guy who reaches back to make sure the strategy overall is good. I think your LDO or even warrant officer idea is suited well for it. However, Big Blue already talked about needing more flexibility in gov't civilian pay to better leverage these guys. Additionally, if they're commissioned/enlisted there's a lot of other queep that'll get handed off to them to do while they're trying to program/infiltrate a country's systems. Nothing stops my guys from innovating faster than telling them their additional duties/volunteer/EPRs need to get looked at.

Probably not counting those since this stellar performers will return to do jazz-hands at whatever MPF/Services/Comm Sq they were before. You know.. Hollywood math.

FYI - there's 17D's (young&old) that still think this. This is a very big issue among my peers, at least those of us who would kill for these opportunities. I'm a prior-E Lt and I just missed the initial 6-month school and got dumped into 17DB despite my training and prior experience. I personally know guys that did offensive stuff (comm & intel) that commissioned and didn't met the STRINGENT requirements to cross to A-shred. Initial cross flow to A-shred had very difficult to achieve requirements for schools, currency, and assignments. Additionally in some training I'd meet grads w/ English/Earth Sciences/Other Bullsh#t degrees who got NSA assignments/A-shred who didn't care about Comm Cyber. That was rather infuriating, and still is since people are now cross-flowing into A-shred billets based on PCS requirements and not performance. I personally know a douche-non-select-Capt that's in the Net War school house now. I believe Cyber selection now has a preference for a technical degree, not a requirement. No one fails at the school house for poor performance, at least in the classes that I've had friends through. Try again, try again, try again, pass. Can't at least conceptualize network exploitation and how to mash IP addresses? That's ok. Sounds like UPT right? Which is how it was billed to us in the community. "This is the Cyber UPT". Nerds using pilot terms, please stop. One solution to this problem is: no Lt's through U/NWT. Capt selects and above and all do a stint in a support role as a first assignment. You can herd out the mouth breathers and send those interested/performers to the schools. It's what we're doing with the enlisted operators anyway. Finally.. we're Ops, where's our goddamn flight suits!