• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Walts, posers & wannabes (merged)

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
239
Points
760
It is a word that I have not seen in common usage in Canada in a very long time, which makes me wonder if English is your first language and you're using a translation program to effectively engage with us in discourse. 
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NavyShooter said:
It is a word that I have not seen in common usage in Canada in a very long time, which makes me wonder if English is your first language and you're using a translation program to effectively engage with us in discourse.

No, English is my first language.
But I find it an interesting point you've raised! Would you somehow connect the word 'lout' with some other language. I could search it out on google but it's probably easier for you to go ahead and provide your explanation first.

edit: O.k. I've got it.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/lout
Nothing in that which applies to me.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
806
Points
940
Donald H said:
No, English is my first language.
But I find it an interesting point you've raised! Would you somehow connect the word 'lout' with some other language. I could search it out on google but it's probably easier for you to go ahead and provide your explanation first.

edit: O.k. I've got it.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/lout
Nothing in that which applies to me.

Hi Donald. Just curious, are you a veteran of the CAF?
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
6
Points
530
NavyShooter said:
DonaldH,
...
Out of related curiousity, what is your background in the CAF?  I haven't seen you speak to that very much? 

NS
Jarnhamar said:
So you're a CAF veteran then?
Jarnhamar said:
Hi Donald. Just curious, are you a veteran of the CAF?
The site's policy on Public Profiles has already been posted once, that is equally applicable to publicly answering questions as to their service, or lack thereof.

No-one on the site is required to have served to be a member, nor is anyone on the site required to state whether or not they have ever served. Asking once is fine, asking multiple times is not. Take from it what you will as to the member's decision to answer or not, but stop demanding an answer.

- Milnet.ca Staff
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
806
Points
940
My bad. Thought he might have missed my question. He's previously said to ask mariomike so I didn't think it was a secret. I'll PM MM, thanks.
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
garb811 said:
The site's policy on Public Profiles has already been posted once, that is equally applicable to publicly answering questions as to their service, or lack thereof.

No-one on the site is required to have served to be a member, nor is anyone on the site required to state whether or not they have ever served. Asking once is fine, asking multiple times is not. Take from it what you will as to the member's decision to answer or not, but stop demanding an answer.

- Milnet.ca Staff

Thank you for that garb and so now that you put it that way I'll answer the question.

Yes, I am a retired member of Canada's armed forces.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
262
Points
1,130
Jarnhamar said:
I'll PM MM, thanks.

I will tell you the same thing I told Donald when he PM'd me.

I quoted our Conduct Guidelines, that we all agreed to when we signed up,

Mike Bobbitt said:
Public Profiles
I strongly encourage you to fill out all the sections of your public profile that you're comfortable with. We respect your privacy and won't force you to fill out your profile if you don't want to. Bear in mind though, that the amount of identifiable info in your profile will increase your general credibility here. Those with empty profiles are much harder to verify and will have to put a lot more effort into building a credible presence here.

Army.ca Staff
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
806
Points
940
Donald H said:
Thank you for that garb and so now that you put it that way I'll answer the question.

Yes, I am a retired member of Canada's armed forces.

Thanks Donald I appreciate that. I asked as I found it interesting that you were guarded (actually down right defensive) about whether or not you were a member of the CAF, while on a site full of military members, but seemed okay mentioning  family.
Nice to see that you're a former member.


[quote author=mariomike]

I quoted our Conduct Guidelines, that we all agreed to when we signed up,

[/quote]

Those guidelines came out after I registered, youngin ;)
 

Gunnar

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
280
Well, since it was a CIC Officer involved, this seems to be the best place to post it.

From my way of looking at it, as a junior member of an exclusive club which allows us to wear the uniforms of officers, you owe it to all of us to 1)  Not look bad and 2) not do anything that would make us look bad.  Also 3) to RESPECT the contributions of others, particularly those on the pointy end, and to stay within your lanes.  This will allow you to say "I am a part of that institution, and inasmuch as I would never consider myself a veteran, I have done everything I can to be as military as possible, within the realm of my capabilities and responsibilities, to know where my expertise ends and to enable youth to reach within themselves for a better person, modelled on what I project the Canadian Armed Forces to be".

For example, I am a civilian.  Much of the cool stuff I know about leadership, dress and deportment was learned from ex-soldiers in civilian occupations.  I have never pretended to be other than that.  Sometimes, my opinion or understanding of military things is wrong - I take responsibility for that, and correct my information in light of correction by a serving member.  I try to keep it real.  The point is to be effective, not to live in some fantasy land of brass pins and salutes.

Pretending you're  a bomb disposal expert, Navy Seal, JTF 12, Canadian Super-Ranger doesn't fall within those guidelines.

 

Attachments

  • stolen valour.jpg
    stolen valour.jpg
    98.1 KB · Views: 308

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
175
Points
710
The super elite Armoured Corps Bomb Squad? I hope I can get him to sign my hat.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
5
Points
480
Gunnar said:
inasmuch as I would never consider myself a veteran,

That is the one claim he can make - as a reservist in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corp he qualifies as a veteran.  If it was during a period Canada was at war he could claim to be a war vet and if he saw combat then a combat vet although I doubt either are applicable.   
 

Michael OLeary

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Getting bombed in the Armoured Corps, traditionally brought to you by the letters and numbers: C2H5OH
 

Bzzliteyr

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
CountDC said:
That is the one claim he can make - as a reservist in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corp he qualifies as a veteran.  If it was during a period Canada was at war he could claim to be a war vet and if he saw combat then a combat vet although I doubt either are applicable.   

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone refer to themselves as a "war vet" or "combat vet". Interesting.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
344
Points
910
So kind of an interesting one; Stolen Valour Canada has apparently been going after someone pretty hard for a GSM they said he didn't earn. Turns out he was actually awarded it, but when DH&S audited it recently it was a clerical error. Anyway somehow SVC got a hold of his MPRR and had been hounding him for a few years, and basically drove him out of veterans advocacy and otherwise torpedoed him. They threw out a pretty weak apology then dropped their website and twitter feed, but these arseclowns need to wind it back. Its usually pretty easy to spot the posers and get them out, but targeting actual veterans and digging into their pers files is a whole level of creepy intrusion of privacy. Hope this gets investigated and someone is charged; they harassed a guy for years because some clerk read a message wrong and sent him a medal in the mail.

Pretty messed up; read the whole thing here;

https://www.facebook.com/groups/853095038155250/permalink/2094646730666735/
 

Kilted

Full Member
Reaction score
156
Points
560
Most of their work has been pretty good, they do normally do their research. I don't remember them posting about this individual. What I'm wondering is how did someone not notice that he was wearing an unearned medal sooner, I would think that there should be a certain expectation of having a basic understanding of how many days are required to earn the GCS, it is pretty common knowledge. I think this is an extreme example, but Id be surprised if he actually didn't know that he wasn't allowed to be wearing it.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
344
Points
910
Kilted said:
Most of their work has been pretty good, they do normally do their research. I don't remember them posting about this individual. What I'm wondering is how did someone not notice that he was wearing an unearned medal sooner, I would think that there should be a certain expectation of having a basic understanding of how many days are required to earn the GCS, it is pretty common knowledge. I think this is an extreme example, but Id be surprised if he actually didn't know that he wasn't allowed to be wearing it.

:facepalm: He was actually issued it after he retired and came with a cover letter saying he was entitled. Feel free to actually read the post, but there is really no reason that you should have some random strangers hunting you on the internet demanding proof that you earned the medals you are wearing then doing the naming and shaming after reviewing your PRO B pers file somehow. With TAVs, etc there are all kinds of random days you can be in theatre for and get days towards the count, so why would you question it if you got a letter from NDHQ saying they reviewed your file and you were entitled to it?

Anyway, SVC put out some BS apology before shutting down their site and twitter feed (hiding any apology). Pretty cowardly, and hoping someone runs with an investigation to see who illegally pulled his pers file and shared the info with SVC. That's a massive breach of privacy, and easily pushes past the line from open source crowd investigation of public records to a witch hunt.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,144
Points
890
I know Aaron, and I watched these SVC clowns hound him. This is after another CAF vet, now a police officer (buddy of mine), even passed along word that he had personally seen the letter from DH&R. And yes, someone illegally accessed his MPRR and passed it along to SVC. That’s potentially unlawful use of a computer system, and breach of trust- two criminal offences.

Aaron got dragged through the mud for a long time over this. He was released - a wounded veteran with publicly disclosed physical and mental health issues - and some clerk somewhere, wanting to be helpful, though from a CFTPO record that he had been in theater long enough to have earned a GCS as well as his SWASM (and sacrifice medal). He was sent the medal in the mail with a letter explaining his entitlement. It turned out to have been in error, but they were quick to unleash the dogs. I watched them incite bullying and harassment while hiding behind the anonymity of a web page and Facebook group. It was cowardly.

Anyway, they screwed up badly. Yes, the medal was in error, and once Aaron got notification of this from DH&R he’s taken action to remedy the situation. As for SVC? Knowing Aaron, he’ll be taking action to remedy them, too. He was one of the plaintiffs in the Equitas lawsuit. I would not ant to have been on the wrong side of this bit of malicious hounding. I’m just glad that when they finally, inevitably screwed up, they didn’t push a vet to suicide. They very easily could have.
 
Top