<p>
</p>
<p>And with all due respect, you, dear Sir, continue to keep your head buried in the sand on this one. I conceded nothing.</p>
<p>The Dant continues to cry “one day one meal,” to this day, but my vote is with the “too numerous to count” Mids who tell a very different story. And an athlete does not drop 35 pounds over 28 days when there is food-a-plenty on the table. And this is not a plebe but an upperclass who managed to eat the year before. And if you were following reports further, you would have known that one worker has been found guilty for stealing 3500 steaks found in his trunk- all bound for Kings Hall- and who knows what happened before they caught him… no doubt one reason for at least on missed meal! And whether it was “not enough food” or that "the food was there but there were distribution issue, the bottom line remains the same: there was a lack of food placed on the table to feed every member of the Brigade, required to report for meals, for a period of 28 days following the Reform of 2007. YOU were not there. I was not there. But we have one Dant saying one thing, and a ton of Mids telling an entirely different story. I am supporting the mids on this one- no way they are all “lying,” and watching the Dant stand up in front of a Board of Visitor Meeting, placing the blame on Mids afraid to ask for more food, or taking more than their share at the tables, is pure rubbish and as far as I am concerned, a blatent lie. No way I am buying that, and 35 pounds is proof enough for me. But you know what- you continue to hold to the company line if it makes you feel better, but you will not be the only one “suffering fools.”</p>
<p>And I did try meet as scheduled- twice- only no '69 tent seen anywhere. 67, 68, 70- found all of them- but not a '69 in sight, unless it was the “class of no class.”
Whatever-</p>
<p>The Dant is history, and I trust ADM Fowler has brought in someone who will be able to communicate the needs of the Brigade effectively. </p>
<p>
one has nothing to do with the other.
I was referring to an observation that, from my perspective, a pattern of adding words and comments clearly meant to inflame and provoke. Examples from this episode:
-“Suffer fools”
-“hogging”- a reference used twice
-“they certainly deserve each other”
-“Obviously some of the mids are showing up laking home training.”
-“unbeliveable, but somehow I am not surprised.”</p>
<p>We have discussed this back and forth on several occassions now, and yet the same pattern repeats.
Thing is- most “take it”…
and no doubt you bit off more than you can chew with me.
So be it.</p>
<p>It is easy enough to select words that do not inflame.
I have said it to you publically and privately- you have a lot to offer on here, and I read and take to heart much that you offer. You have a unique insight that I do not have, and as such, your comments are welcomed.</p>
<p>However, you cross the line- and in this case, I have put it in the “ediquette” category- when you post your opinion in such a way that it is insulting, disrespectful, and clearly lacking taste. Other posters were able to say “you know, NAVY2010, it was not right to take up so many seats”… I can live with that- what I take offense to is when the “adjectives” are added meant to insult and inflame… that is where you cross over the line. </p>
<p>Obviously we all have opinions, and the majority are trying to dialogue respectfully. We can when the rest of us are trying to dialogue repectfully. We can agree, we can disagree, we can even agree to disagree, but all can be accomplished respectfully. You can still make your point clear, but with words that are less inflammatory and less likely to provoke the response they do. It is your choice to make, and when I cite a failing grade in etiquette, it is in response to the verbage you choose to use; but then don’t be surprised when you get the response.</p>