herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004 Status: offline
|
thompsonx: According to the aws(american welding society) the minimum shade used in welding gogles for oxy/acetylene is #5...this would preclude the welder from seeing where the sparks were falling. Red Herring. This is beside the point in our discussion. Someone came on here and claimed that people in the military didn't talk about their military experiences. I came back with the story that my dad told me, where he did the welder's job for him to quickly get the job done. You're attempting to use this to argue that my dad "lacked" discipline by "abandoning" his post, which he didn't. In each instance, you couldn't argue your case, so you advance a red herring statement. However, this is just another example of you using google to make yourself sound like you "know" what you're talking about. thompsonx: Wearing ppe (safety glasses) to weld is a sure sign that someone has no clue what they are doing. Negative. Whether he wore the PPE or the welder's helmet didn't influence the fact that my dad was able to weld. If you were a veteran, you'd also remember numerous instances of people trying to cut corners. thompsonx: That some squid knows how to weld is hardly relevant. Actually, it's relevant to this debate. If you were attached to the department my dad was attached to, you'd know how to weld and do other ship hull maintenance work. It bolsters the fact that my dad quickly finished a welding job. Again, this supports my argument that military people will talk about their military experiences, and I used my dad quickly finishing a welding job as an example. What's irrelevant to the debate is what kind of face shield the welder used. thompsonx: His job is firewatch and not welder so it would appear that you learned your military discipline from someone who had little. Inductive Fallacy. WRONG. You argued that he abandoned his post. In order for him to do that, he'd have to leave the welder unattended. In my argument, and yours, there's no indication that he abandoned the welder. In this post, you acknowledge that he was doing the welder's job, which meant that he was with the welder. My dad was active, and didn't just want to sit around doing nothing. While remaining at his firewatcch AO, he did the welders job... fully capable of taking out a fire that may have started. My dad demonstrated far more discipline in real life than you've demonstrated here. You've got no legs to stand on when talking about military discipline. You've got no discipline and integrity when dealing with this thread. thompsonx: As for your squid daddy serving six tours in viet nam that is clearly misleading. If your squid daddy was a frog or a seal,as you claim, he would have been serving 6 month tours with no less than six months out of country between tours. This would mean he only did three years. The only person being misleading is you, here's why. A combat tour is a combat tour, regardless of how many months they did that combat tour. And no, they weren't always six months. Navy deployments range from three to nine months. Army deployments range from 9 months to a year and a half. Marine deployments range from 6 months and up. If the main purpose of your deployment is to conduct combat operations, conduct combat missions, combat support missions, etc, you went on a combat tour, period, whether that was three months long, or a year and a half, is beside the point. And get this. Every branch of the service gives their deployed service members the opportunity to extend their deployments. Did you get that? EXTEND their deployments. My dad loved being in the field, he was active, and enjoyed doing combat missions. He hated the shore duty/garrison arrangement. His heart was in the field. He wasn't satisfied with just doing the minimum tour, he talked about how he extended some of his deployments. Again, if you were a veteran, you would've known about these deployment extension opportunities. This is just one more hash mark on the "thompsonx is a poser," sleeve. thompsonx: I gave you ample opportunity to clarify your position I've constantly argued that my dad did 6 combat tours. I never argued that he did 6 years, I never said that. I never said that for a few reasons. First, you consistently use strawman arguments, addressing what you wanted people to say rather than what they wanted to say. Second, I knew that you did a google search on SEAL/Navy deployments, and that google search gave you the 6 month Navy deployments. A third reason is that I never argued that he did 6 years. I withheld the above facts about deployment extensions, and deployment lengths, until you decided to drop the foot about the 6 years deployment. This is an example of what I'm talking about when I say that I'm being sadistic in these fights. But wait! There's more! According to those that I talked to, who were in the Navy during the Vietnam Era, Navy deployments were 9 months long. It wasn't till the 21st Century till the 9 month Navy deployment returned. So once again, thanks for proving that you're a poser, like I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread. thompsonx: but you in your effort to paint yourself as the son of some "big deal" Strawman Argument + Repeat Point My mentioning my dad and his 6 combat tours has everything to do to countering what people said. For instance, I used his doing the welder's job story to prove a poster wrong about service members "not" talking about their experiences. I used it against you to give you an example of who my dad knocked on their asses when he was in the Navy. If the reason I give you, for my dad's six combat tours, and welder job, "isn't believable" to you remember, I know what my cognitive processes are, you don't. If you find yourself in disagreement, know that you're wrong and have the integrity to make a post that reflects reality. thompsonx: kept you from stating the facts The vast majority of what I'm saying here is reasoned argument based on facts. These facts are based on extensive research, as well as experience, in the material that we're debating. The fact that your arrogance blinds you to these facts doesn't translate to these "not" being facts. thompsonx: which begs us to question the validity of your other statements Inductive Fallacy, Strawman Argument. You used a strawman argument in an attempt to question facts that I presented on this thread. You argued from the 6 year approach rather than the 6 combat tour approach. Then you proceeded to argue that since he didn't fit your textbook definition of a combat tour, he "didn't" do the combat tour. These are all attempts to play with semantics, which have nothing to do with the fact that my dad did 6 combat tours in Vietnam.
|