Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Army has no shame at all in recruiting tactics

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:20:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...

How Far Will The Army Go?

Apr 28, 2005 9:59 pm US/Mountain
How far will U.S. Army recruiters go to bring young men and women into
their ranks? An Arvada West High School senior recently decided to
find out. The following is CBS4 Investigator Rick Sallinger's report..

ARVADA, Colo. (CBS4) -- Last month the U.S. Army failed to meet its
goal of 6,800 new troops.

Aware of this trend, David McSwane, a local high school student,
decided he wanted to find out to what extent some recruiters would go
to sign up soldiers who were not up to grade.

McSwane, 17, is actually just the kind of teenager the military would
like. He's a high school journalist and honor student at Arvada West
High School. But McSwane decided he wanted to see "how far the Army
would go during a war to get one more solider."

McSwane contacted his local army recruiting office in Golden with a
scenario he created. He told a recruiter that he was a dropout and
didn't have a high school diploma.

"No problem," the recruiter explained. He suggested that McSwane
create a fake diploma from a non-existent school.

McSwane recorded the recruiter saying that on the phone.

"It can be like Faith Hill Baptist School or something -- whatever you
choose," the recruiter said.

As instructed, McSwane went on the computer to a Web site and for $200
arranged to have a phony diploma created that certified him as a
graduate of Faith Hill Baptist High School, the very name the
recruiter suggested. It came complete with a fake grade transcript.

"What was your reaction to them encouraging you to get a phony
diploma?" CBS4's Rick Sallinger asked.

"I was shocked," McSwane said. "I'm sitting there looking at a poster
that says 'Integrity, Honor, Respect' and he is telling me to lie."

McSwane also pretended he had a drug problem when he spoke with the
recruiter.

The Army does not accept enlistees with drug problems.

"I have a problem with drugs," McSwane said, referring to the
conversation he had with the recruiter. "I can't kick the habit ...
just marijuana."

"[The recruiter] said 'Not a problem,' just take this detox ... he
said he would pay half of it ... told me where to go."

Drug testers CBS4 contacted insist it doesn't work, but the recruiter
claimed in another recorded phone conversation that taking
"detoxification capsules and liquid" would help McSwane pass the
required test.

"The two times I had the guys use it, it has worked both times," the
recruiter said in the recorded conversation. "We didn't have to worry
about anything."

Then the original recruiter was transferred and another recruiter,
Sgt. Tim Pickel, picked up the ball.

A friend of McSwane shot videotape as Pickel drove McSwane to a store
where he purchased the so-called detox kit.

CBS4 then went to the Army recruiting office and confronted Sgt.
Pickel. CBS4 played him a conversation McSwane had with Pickel on the
phone. The transcript of that conversation follows:

Pickel: When you said about the one problem that you had, what does it
consist of?
McSwane: "Marijuana."
Pickel: Oh, OK so nothing major?
McSwane: Yeah, he said he would take me down to get that stuff, I mean
I have no idea what it is, so you would have to show me. Is that a
problem?
Pickel: No, not at all.

Pickel quickly referred CBS4 to his superiors.

CBS4 then played the tapes and showed the video to Lt. Col. Jeffrey
Brodeur, who heads army recruiting for the region.

"Let me sum up all of this with one word: unacceptable, completely
unacceptable," Brodeur said.

Hearing recruiters talking about phony diplomas and ways to beat drug
tests left Brodeur more than a little disturbed.

"Let me tell you something sir, I'm a soldier and have been a soldier
for 20 years," Brodeur said. "This violates trust, it violates
integrity, it violates honor and it violates duty."

The army says it is conducting a full investigation. Brodeur said
there is no pressure or punishment for recruiters if quotas are not
met. They are, however, rewarded when their goals are surpassed.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 4:34:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> How Far Will The Army Go?

Well according to the story it will go as far as the law says it can.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 5:30:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

La N wrote:
> http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>
> How Far Will The Army Go?
>
> Apr 28, 2005 9:59 pm US/Mountain
> How far will U.S. Army recruiters go to bring young men and women into
> their ranks? An Arvada West High School senior recently decided to
> find out. The following is CBS4 Investigator Rick Sallinger's report..
>
> ARVADA, Colo. (CBS4) -- Last month the U.S. Army failed to meet its
> goal of 6,800 new troops.
>
> Aware of this trend, David McSwane, a local high school student,
> decided he wanted to find out to what extent some recruiters would go
> to sign up soldiers who were not up to grade.
>
> McSwane, 17, is actually just the kind of teenager the military would
> like. He's a high school journalist and honor student at Arvada West
> High School. But McSwane decided he wanted to see "how far the Army
> would go during a war to get one more solider."
>
> McSwane contacted his local army recruiting office in Golden with a
> scenario he created. He told a recruiter that he was a dropout and
> didn't have a high school diploma.
>
> "No problem," the recruiter explained. He suggested that McSwane
> create a fake diploma from a non-existent school.
>
> McSwane recorded the recruiter saying that on the phone.
>
> "It can be like Faith Hill Baptist School or something -- whatever you
> choose," the recruiter said.
>
> As instructed, McSwane went on the computer to a Web site and for $200
> arranged to have a phony diploma created that certified him as a
> graduate of Faith Hill Baptist High School, the very name the
> recruiter suggested. It came complete with a fake grade transcript.
>
> "What was your reaction to them encouraging you to get a phony
> diploma?" CBS4's Rick Sallinger asked.
>
> "I was shocked," McSwane said. "I'm sitting there looking at a poster
> that says 'Integrity, Honor, Respect' and he is telling me to lie."
>
> McSwane also pretended he had a drug problem when he spoke with the
> recruiter.
>
> The Army does not accept enlistees with drug problems.
>
> "I have a problem with drugs," McSwane said, referring to the
> conversation he had with the recruiter. "I can't kick the habit ...
> just marijuana."
>
> "[The recruiter] said 'Not a problem,' just take this detox ... he
> said he would pay half of it ... told me where to go."
>
> Drug testers CBS4 contacted insist it doesn't work, but the recruiter
> claimed in another recorded phone conversation that taking
> "detoxification capsules and liquid" would help McSwane pass the
> required test.
>
> "The two times I had the guys use it, it has worked both times," the
> recruiter said in the recorded conversation. "We didn't have to worry
> about anything."
>
> Then the original recruiter was transferred and another recruiter,
> Sgt. Tim Pickel, picked up the ball.
>
> A friend of McSwane shot videotape as Pickel drove McSwane to a store
> where he purchased the so-called detox kit.
>
> CBS4 then went to the Army recruiting office and confronted Sgt.
> Pickel. CBS4 played him a conversation McSwane had with Pickel on the
> phone. The transcript of that conversation follows:
>
> Pickel: When you said about the one problem that you had, what does it
> consist of?
> McSwane: "Marijuana."
> Pickel: Oh, OK so nothing major?
> McSwane: Yeah, he said he would take me down to get that stuff, I mean
> I have no idea what it is, so you would have to show me. Is that a
> problem?
> Pickel: No, not at all.
>
> Pickel quickly referred CBS4 to his superiors.
>
> CBS4 then played the tapes and showed the video to Lt. Col. Jeffrey
> Brodeur, who heads army recruiting for the region.
>
> "Let me sum up all of this with one word: unacceptable, completely
> unacceptable," Brodeur said.
>
> Hearing recruiters talking about phony diplomas and ways to beat drug
> tests left Brodeur more than a little disturbed.
>
> "Let me tell you something sir, I'm a soldier and have been a soldier
> for 20 years," Brodeur said. "This violates trust, it violates
> integrity, it violates honor and it violates duty."
>
> The army says it is conducting a full investigation. Brodeur said
> there is no pressure or punishment for recruiters if quotas are not
> met. They are, however, rewarded when their goals are surpassed.

I don't think you should equate the actions of one recruiter to 'the
Army'. As the Lt. Col. said, it iv a violation of honor, duty, and
trust, as well as of the law.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 5:30:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:VNjde.27548$Ow2.11145@fe06.lga...
> [psuedo]-La N wrote:
>> http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>>

>> The army says it is conducting a full investigation. Brodeur said
>> there is no pressure or punishment for recruiters if quotas are not
>> met. They are, however, rewarded when their goals are surpassed.
>
> I don't think you should equate the actions of one recruiter to 'the
> Army'. As the Lt. Col. said, it iv a violation of honor, duty, and trust,
> as well as of the law.
>

One thing I think that LtC Brodeur said that I believe was misleading is
that there is no "pressure or punishment" for not meeting goals. Don't you
lose your recruiter status if you fail to meet recruiting goals? That would
be pressure or punishment, IMHO, if you wanted to remain a recruiter...
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:27:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1 May 2005 21:20:23 -0700, La N <nilita@mailinator.com> wrote:

> http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>
> How Far Will The Army Go?

Here comes your Dubayan friend again, Nilita. :) 


--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:27:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin+usenet@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:o psp4r0nrcurn6af@paulo...
> On 1 May 2005 21:20:23 -0700, La N <nilita@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>>
>> How Far Will The Army Go?
>
> Here comes your Dubayan friend again, Nilita. :) 
>


I'd say he was more *your* friend Paolito ... ;) 

He/she sure is a chickensh*t, though.

- n'a
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:14:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 04:29:02 GMT, La N <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin+usenet@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:o psp4r0nrcurn6af@paulo...
>> On 1 May 2005 21:20:23 -0700, La N <nilita@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>>>
>>> How Far Will The Army Go?
>>
>> Here comes your Dubayan friend again, Nilita. :) 
>>
>
>
> I'd say he was more *your* friend Paolito ... ;) 
>
> He/she sure is a chickensh*t, though.

Ah-ah, now I see that the troll has left his mark:

rec.photo.digital

I don't know what the people of that newsgroup has done to be harassed on
this way, but this seems to be a very, very old war. :-|



--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:37:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> One thing I think that LtC Brodeur said that I believe was misleading is
> that there is no "pressure or punishment" for not meeting goals. Don't
> you lose your recruiter status if you fail to meet recruiting goals? That
> would be pressure or punishment, IMHO, if you wanted to remain a
> recruiter...

Your right on that. It's the same logic that traffic cops don't have quotas
but if that traffic cop isn't writing enough tickets then is he really doing
his job? Potential recruits need to research military service before they go
to the recruiter the same way people research buying a car or house. The
recruiter is going to tell you all the good things and maybe some of the
minor bad things but his overall goal is to get contracts signed. I think a
fair gauge of the current military mood is to look at the amount of people
re-enlisting. They already know what it's all about. If they aren't signing
back up then there is something wrong.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:50:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 2 May 2005 09:37:07 -0400, "BadBender" <badbender@cox.net>
wrote:

>Your right on that. It's the same logic that traffic cops don't have quotas
>but if that traffic cop isn't writing enough tickets then is he really doing
>his job? Potential recruits need to research military service before they go
>to the recruiter the same way people research buying a car or house. The
>recruiter is going to tell you all the good things and maybe some of the
>minor bad things but his overall goal is to get contracts signed. I think a
>fair gauge of the current military mood is to look at the amount of people
>re-enlisting. They already know what it's all about. If they aren't signing
>back up then there is something wrong.

Of course Army re-enlistments are higher than before the Iraq
campaign.




"The commander in the field is always right and the
rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise."
General Colin Powell
May 2, 2005 2:03:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

La N wrote:

>snip a load of bs.

The Army will make life miserable for any recruiter that does such a hoax.
Someone is lying there.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:17:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <opsp4r0nrcurn6af@paulo>, "Paulo Gomes Jardim"
<darwin+usenet@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On 1 May 2005 21:20:23 -0700, La N <nilita@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
> >
> > How Far Will The Army Go?
>
> Here comes your Dubayan friend again, Nilita. :) 

One of the credibility problems of the forger is that I've never seen La
N. post an entire article, with no personal comment. When she does
refer to articles, it will usually be a short personal comment and then
a link.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:19:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <i0ide.15665$0X6.10844@edtnps90>, "La N"
<nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin+usenet@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:o psp4r0nrcurn6af@paulo...
> > On 1 May 2005 21:20:23 -0700, La N <nilita@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
> >>
> >> How Far Will The Army Go?
> >
> > Here comes your Dubayan friend again, Nilita. :) 
> >
>
>
> I'd say he was more *your* friend Paolito ... ;) 
>
> He/she sure is a chickensh*t, though.
>

Chickensh*t is on topic, potentially, in a military group, althout
batsh*t is preferable. Preferably with a bit of minor chemical
treatment, quite within farm capabilities, they can provide the oxidizer
for a low-power IED.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:22:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <opsp4t5qokurn6af@paulo>, "Paulo Gomes Jardim"
<darwin+usenet@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 May 2005 04:29:02 GMT, La N <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin+usenet@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:o psp4r0nrcurn6af@paulo...
> >> On 1 May 2005 21:20:23 -0700, La N <nilita@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
> >>>
> >>> How Far Will The Army Go?
> >>
> >> Here comes your Dubayan friend again, Nilita. :) 
> >>
> >
> >
> > I'd say he was more *your* friend Paolito ... ;) 
> >
> > He/she sure is a chickensh*t, though.
>
> Ah-ah, now I see that the troll has left his mark:
>
> rec.photo.digital
>
> I don't know what the people of that newsgroup has done to be harassed on
>
> this way, but this seems to be a very, very old war. :-|


*sigh* I have mixed feelings. As a sometime fine arts photographer with
limits on materials and techniques, my reaction to all-digital
photography is that "if God meant photographers to use charge-coupled
devices or other semiconductor imaging systems, he wouldn't have
invented organic dye sensitized silver halide systems coated onto film
stock."

Seriously, thanks for the reminder -- I've tried to trim that group as
an innocent bystander, but realized I've missed it in a few. I'll try to
be more careful.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 5:43:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:03:50 -0500, asdf@global.net wrote:

> The Army will make life miserable for any recruiter that does such a hoax.

And gets caught.


> Someone is lying there.

Well sure, but it wasn't Brodeur.

> CBS4 then played the tapes and showed the video to Lt. Col. Jeffrey
> Brodeur, who heads army recruiting for the region.
>
> "Let me sum up all of this with one word: unacceptable, completely
> unacceptable," Brodeur said.

No lies were apparent in his prepared script. That two of his
recruiters would be so careless and unobservant as to allow
themselves to be caught on tape was indeed unacceptable.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 6:26:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-FE5B09.10174602052005@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <opsp4r0nrcurn6af@paulo>, "Paulo Gomes Jardim"
> <darwin+usenet@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1 May 2005 21:20:23 -0700, La N <nilita@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>> > http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>> >
>> > How Far Will The Army Go?
>>
>> Here comes your Dubayan friend again, Nilita. :) 
>
> One of the credibility problems of the forger is that I've never seen La
> N. post an entire article, with no personal comment. When she does
> refer to articles, it will usually be a short personal comment and then
> a link.

Yup. I tend to immediately delete cut-and-paste articles because
they are suggestive of a poster who has little by way of original
thought.

- nilita
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:13:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

LawsonE wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:VNjde.27548$Ow2.11145@fe06.lga...
>
>>[psuedo]-La N wrote:
>>
>>>http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>>>
>
>
>>>The army says it is conducting a full investigation. Brodeur said
>>>there is no pressure or punishment for recruiters if quotas are not
>>>met. They are, however, rewarded when their goals are surpassed.
>>
>>I don't think you should equate the actions of one recruiter to 'the
>>Army'. As the Lt. Col. said, it iv a violation of honor, duty, and trust,
>>as well as of the law.
>>
>
>
> One thing I think that LtC Brodeur said that I believe was misleading is
> that there is no "pressure or punishment" for not meeting goals. Don't you
> lose your recruiter status if you fail to meet recruiting goals? That would
> be pressure or punishment, IMHO, if you wanted to remain a recruiter...
>
>
I am sure that if you consistently fell below quota, and others in your
area didn't, then you could expect a reassignment, but that is the way
the military works. People seldom remain in recruitment for a whole
career. I have a nephew who supervises recruiters for the Air Force,
along the northern west coast. He was in supply only a few years ago,
and may be doing work in some other place in another year or two. The
military puts people where their talents, and skills are best utilized.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:20:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

BadBender wrote:
>>One thing I think that LtC Brodeur said that I believe was misleading is
>>that there is no "pressure or punishment" for not meeting goals. Don't
>>you lose your recruiter status if you fail to meet recruiting goals? That
>>would be pressure or punishment, IMHO, if you wanted to remain a
>>recruiter...
>
>
> Your right on that. It's the same logic that traffic cops don't have quotas
> but if that traffic cop isn't writing enough tickets then is he really doing
> his job? Potential recruits need to research military service before they go
> to the recruiter the same way people research buying a car or house. The
> recruiter is going to tell you all the good things and maybe some of the
> minor bad things but his overall goal is to get contracts signed. I think a
> fair gauge of the current military mood is to look at the amount of people
> re-enlisting. They already know what it's all about. If they aren't signing
> back up then there is something wrong.
>
>
Sure there is. Some people are getting their asses shot off! Some
people aren't prepared for that 'slight' disadvantage. We have raised a
generation of wimps, and people without a sense of duty. It will get
worse. Fortunately, there are still people who believe in freedom, and
realize that its price is blood, and who are still willing to pay that
price.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:07:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:50:40 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 May 2005 09:37:07 -0400, "BadBender" <badbender@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Your right on that. It's the same logic that traffic cops don't have
>> quotas
>> but if that traffic cop isn't writing enough tickets then is he really
>> doing
>> his job? Potential recruits need to research military service before
>> they go
>> to the recruiter the same way people research buying a car or house. The
>> recruiter is going to tell you all the good things and maybe some of the
>> minor bad things but his overall goal is to get contracts signed. I
>> think a
>> fair gauge of the current military mood is to look at the amount of
>> people
>> re-enlisting. They already know what it's all about. If they aren't
>> signing
>> back up then there is something wrong.
>
> Of course Army re-enlistments are higher than before the Iraq
> campaign.

I don't know about reenlistments, but there seems to be currently a
shortage of overall enlistments on the US Army:

Army Having Difficulty Meeting Goals In Recruiting
Fewer Enlistees Are in Pipeline; Many Being Rushed Into Service

"The active-duty Army is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting
goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those that
have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength,
according to Army figures and interviews with senior officers ."

....

""Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting
soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief.
"We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing
settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for
'05 it's going to be tough to meet our goal, but I think we can. I think
the telling year for us is going to be '06."

Other senior military officers have voiced similar concerns in recent
days. "I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging for both
active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Appropriations subcommittee
Feb. 17. The Marine Corps fell short of its monthly recruiting quota in
January for the first time in nearly a decade."
....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40469-2005Feb...

--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:38:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Doesn't really matter what sort/type of person they recruit. By the time
they have brainwashed them they start out again with an unused brain!!!
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:38:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Noah Fingawtoo wrote:
> Doesn't really matter what sort/type of person they recruit. By the time
> they have brainwashed them they start out again with an unused brain!!!
>
>
Balderdash!
We aren't talking about Marines here.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:43:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:ehmc71l1l2egcvagcuobgurl8luu6i9d3j@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 May 2005 09:37:07 -0400, "BadBender" <badbender@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Your right on that. It's the same logic that traffic cops don't have
>>quotas
>>but if that traffic cop isn't writing enough tickets then is he really
>>doing
>>his job? Potential recruits need to research military service before they
>>go
>>to the recruiter the same way people research buying a car or house. The
>>recruiter is going to tell you all the good things and maybe some of the
>>minor bad things but his overall goal is to get contracts signed. I think
>>a
>>fair gauge of the current military mood is to look at the amount of people
>>re-enlisting. They already know what it's all about. If they aren't
>>signing
>>back up then there is something wrong.
>
> Of course Army re-enlistments are higher than before the Iraq
> campaign.

Doesn't that include guard/reservists who have decided that if they're going
to be doing the military thing full-time, they might as well get all the
perks of doing the military full-time? If you take out the guard/reservists
who are re-enlisting as regular Army, what do the stats look like?
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:45:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0Svde.8346$cZ6.4649@fe02.lga...
> LawsonE wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:VNjde.27548$Ow2.11145@fe06.lga...
>>
>>>[psuedo]-La N wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>The army says it is conducting a full investigation. Brodeur said
>>>>there is no pressure or punishment for recruiters if quotas are not
>>>>met. They are, however, rewarded when their goals are surpassed.
>>>
>>>I don't think you should equate the actions of one recruiter to 'the
>>>Army'. As the Lt. Col. said, it iv a violation of honor, duty, and
>>>trust, as well as of the law.
>>>
>>
>>
>> One thing I think that LtC Brodeur said that I believe was misleading is
>> that there is no "pressure or punishment" for not meeting goals. Don't
>> you lose your recruiter status if you fail to meet recruiting goals? That
>> would be pressure or punishment, IMHO, if you wanted to remain a
>> recruiter...
> I am sure that if you consistently fell below quota, and others in your
> area didn't, then you could expect a reassignment, but that is the way the
> military works. People seldom remain in recruitment for a whole career.
> I have a nephew who supervises recruiters for the Air Force, along the
> northern west coast. He was in supply only a few years ago, and may be
> doing work in some other place in another year or two. The military puts
> people where their talents, and skills are best utilized.

Well, that's the ideal, but in wartime, or with acute manning shortages, the
military puts people where bodies are needed, period. OK, pilots aren't
going to be tapped to do MP/SP duty, and so on, but unless you're in a
critical field, you're a warm body first, and a "talent," second.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:46:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Noah Fingawtoo" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:42760308$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Doesn't really matter what sort/type of person they recruit. By the time
> they have brainwashed them they start out again with an unused brain!!!
>
>

Nyah. Basic training indoctrination usually only "takes" with people below a
certain age. The rest just learn to "pretend" pretty well.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:47:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:BSvde.8347$cZ6.2798@fe02.lga...
> Noah Fingawtoo wrote:
>> Doesn't really matter what sort/type of person they recruit. By the time
>> they have brainwashed them they start out again with an unused brain!!!
>>
>>
> Balderdash!
> We aren't talking about Marines here.

All military basic indoctrinates to some extent, no matter which branch
you're talking about.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 11:31:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 15:20:56 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Fortunately, there are still people who believe in freedom, and
> realize that its price is blood, and who are still willing to pay that
> price.

I prefer the older "food for oil" program. "blood" is too high a
price, especially when we were told it was buying us something else.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:17:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

LawsonE wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:0Svde.8346$cZ6.4649@fe02.lga...
>
>>LawsonE wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:VNjde.27548$Ow2.11145@fe06.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>[psuedo]-La N wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_1181250...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The army says it is conducting a full investigation. Brodeur said
>>>>>there is no pressure or punishment for recruiters if quotas are not
>>>>>met. They are, however, rewarded when their goals are surpassed.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think you should equate the actions of one recruiter to 'the
>>>>Army'. As the Lt. Col. said, it iv a violation of honor, duty, and
>>>>trust, as well as of the law.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>One thing I think that LtC Brodeur said that I believe was misleading is
>>>that there is no "pressure or punishment" for not meeting goals. Don't
>>>you lose your recruiter status if you fail to meet recruiting goals? That
>>>would be pressure or punishment, IMHO, if you wanted to remain a
>>>recruiter...
>>
>>I am sure that if you consistently fell below quota, and others in your
>>area didn't, then you could expect a reassignment, but that is the way the
>>military works. People seldom remain in recruitment for a whole career.
>>I have a nephew who supervises recruiters for the Air Force, along the
>>northern west coast. He was in supply only a few years ago, and may be
>>doing work in some other place in another year or two. The military puts
>>people where their talents, and skills are best utilized.
>
>
> Well, that's the ideal, but in wartime, or with acute manning shortages, the
> military puts people where bodies are needed, period. OK, pilots aren't
> going to be tapped to do MP/SP duty, and so on, but unless you're in a
> critical field, you're a warm body first, and a "talent," second.
>
>
Really? Is THAT why I got to spend 3 months on Guam in 1965 building
bombs, even though my training was in IT? Thanks for educating me.
It's probably the reason I got to put on one of those hot HazMat suits
in the middle of the Texas summer and play games with nuclear
material... Now I know.
Sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:18:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

LawsonE wrote:
> "Noah Fingawtoo" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:42760308$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>Doesn't really matter what sort/type of person they recruit. By the time
>>they have brainwashed them they start out again with an unused brain!!!
>>
>>
>
>
> Nyah. Basic training indoctrination usually only "takes" with people below a
> certain age. The rest just learn to "pretend" pretty well.
>
>
I was 23. The way to get through it is to just play the game.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:18:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:o bBde.8415$cZ6.8160@fe02.lga...
> LawsonE wrote:
>> "Noah Fingawtoo" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:42760308$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>>Doesn't really matter what sort/type of person they recruit. By the time
>>>they have brainwashed them they start out again with an unused brain!!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nyah. Basic training indoctrination usually only "takes" with people
>> below a certain age. The rest just learn to "pretend" pretty well.
> I was 23. The way to get through it is to just play the game.

BIG difference between 18 and 23 (I was 23 when I enlisted, also).
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:19:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,soc.culture.iraq,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

LawsonE wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:BSvde.8347$cZ6.2798@fe02.lga...
>
>>Noah Fingawtoo wrote:
>>
>>>Doesn't really matter what sort/type of person they recruit. By the time
>>>they have brainwashed them they start out again with an unused brain!!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Balderdash!
>>We aren't talking about Marines here.
>
>
> All military basic indoctrinates to some extent, no matter which branch
> you're talking about.
>
>
NOT like the Marines, and so that you know, my older brother is one of
the Chosin Few.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 4:53:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:19:03 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> All military basic indoctrinates to some extent, no matter which branch
>> you're talking about.
>>
>
> NOT like the Marines, and so that you know, my older brother is one of
> the Chosin Few.

If you ever come across "Bill, The Galactic Hero" by Harry
Harrison you might want to give it a read. It's likely to be found
in the SF section of bookstores, but is basically a pretty amusing
story about Bill's military adventures. Hyperbole doesn't begin to
describe it. Your brother might like it too. If he doesn't, try
one of Harrison's earlier books, "DeathWorld" (part of a trilogy, I
think).
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:20:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:19:03 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>>All military basic indoctrinates to some extent, no matter which branch
>>>you're talking about.
>>>
>>
>>NOT like the Marines, and so that you know, my older brother is one of
>>the Chosin Few.
>
>
> If you ever come across "Bill, The Galactic Hero" by Harry
> Harrison you might want to give it a read. It's likely to be found
> in the SF section of bookstores, but is basically a pretty amusing
> story about Bill's military adventures. Hyperbole doesn't begin to
> describe it. Your brother might like it too. If he doesn't, try
> one of Harrison's earlier books, "DeathWorld" (part of a trilogy, I
> think).
>
My brother hates to read. I am sure he wouldn't like anything like that
as he NEVER reads anything that isn't factual (except the newspaper, of
course) Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:36:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 02:25:14 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Ok, consider this. Had Hussein captured control of just the adjoining
> countries, from whom would we have bought oil? Now, who controls the world?

He wouldn't and couldn't. He only attacked Kuwait after basically
asking our permission, which we gave with a "what you fellers do in
your own backyard is no business of ours" reply. As I said, when
the time came to dispose of this petty tyrant we found a way.


> Initially, we though helping keep a balance of power in the area was a
> good idea, but it proved to be a mistake. The balance didn't stay
> 'balanced', and then things began to topple. You can't build a house of
> cards and expect it to weather a storm.

A balance of power? That may be part of the reason, but I believe
I've seen quotes from major players (possibly Rumsfeld) indicating
that having Iraq and Iran fight each other to in order to have both
countries weaken themselves by suffering enormous casualties was a
more primary goal.

> Maybe we will have a definitive answer to the basic questions of the war
> in 50 years or so. Do you think that in 1947 most people would have
> thought that the US and Japan, or Germany, would ever be friends?

Maybe not most, but many. But in 1937 there were many Americans
looking favorably on a Germany heading in the wrong direction. One
of Bush's clan (possibly Prescott, but I'm not sure that it was him)
had to be discouraged by Roosevelt from continuing his business
dealings with Germany. But your hypothetical is a convenient excuse
to justify a war that already has an enormous amount of data
indicating that it was a bad decision. Not a mistake. You and many
others may have been honestly mistaken because you were presented
with inaccurate and false data. The decision makers worked overtime
trying to justify what they'd wanted to do for many years. Bush,
BTW, wasn't (isn't) a true decision maker. More of a salesman.
That's already clear. No need to wait 50 years. That's a long
enough period so that anyone aware enough of political gamesmanship
to utter such a statement knows they probably won't be alive in 50
years. Meaning, for the rest of their lives they can continue with
their head in the sand, never having to acknowledge that they were
mistaken. Even today there are many that deny most of the
atrocities committed by Germany, some (such as Mr. Irving in his
writings about Dresden) even claiming that we were more guilty of
that sort of thing. If in 50 years more than a tiny percentage of
Americans still think the war was justified, then the Murdoch empire
(no, Rupert won't be around) will be have as much of a stranglehold
on the news here as Berlusconi has today in Italy.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 7:40:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 02:20:16 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> My brother hates to read. I am sure he wouldn't like anything like that
> as he NEVER reads anything that isn't factual (except the newspaper, of
> course) Grin.

BTGH might be the book that "proves the rule" with him. If
nothing else, it makes heavy use of the epithet "Bowb", which I've
heard in another ng is of Scottish origin. When I read the book
many years ago I thought it was a word invented by Harrison.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 8:28:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 02:25:14 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Ok, consider this. Had Hussein captured control of just the adjoining
>>countries, from whom would we have bought oil? Now, who controls the world?
>
>
> He wouldn't and couldn't. He only attacked Kuwait after basically
> asking our permission, which we gave with a "what you fellers do in
> your own backyard is no business of ours" reply. As I said, when
> the time came to dispose of this petty tyrant we found a way.
>
>
>
>>Initially, we though helping keep a balance of power in the area was a
>>good idea, but it proved to be a mistake. The balance didn't stay
>>'balanced', and then things began to topple. You can't build a house of
>>cards and expect it to weather a storm.
>
>
> A balance of power? That may be part of the reason, but I believe
> I've seen quotes from major players (possibly Rumsfeld) indicating
> that having Iraq and Iran fight each other to in order to have both
> countries weaken themselves by suffering enormous casualties was a
> more primary goal.
>
>
>>Maybe we will have a definitive answer to the basic questions of the war
>>in 50 years or so. Do you think that in 1947 most people would have
>>thought that the US and Japan, or Germany, would ever be friends?
>
>
> Maybe not most, but many. But in 1937 there were many Americans
> looking favorably on a Germany heading in the wrong direction. One
> of Bush's clan (possibly Prescott, but I'm not sure that it was him)
> had to be discouraged by Roosevelt from continuing his business
> dealings with Germany. But your hypothetical is a convenient excuse
> to justify a war that already has an enormous amount of data
> indicating that it was a bad decision. Not a mistake. You and many
> others may have been honestly mistaken because you were presented
> with inaccurate and false data. The decision makers worked overtime
> trying to justify what they'd wanted to do for many years. Bush,
> BTW, wasn't (isn't) a true decision maker. More of a salesman.
> That's already clear. No need to wait 50 years. That's a long
> enough period so that anyone aware enough of political gamesmanship
> to utter such a statement knows they probably won't be alive in 50
> years. Meaning, for the rest of their lives they can continue with
> their head in the sand, never having to acknowledge that they were
> mistaken. Even today there are many that deny most of the
> atrocities committed by Germany, some (such as Mr. Irving in his
> writings about Dresden) even claiming that we were more guilty of
> that sort of thing. If in 50 years more than a tiny percentage of
> Americans still think the war was justified, then the Murdoch empire
> (no, Rupert won't be around) will be have as much of a stranglehold
> on the news here as Berlusconi has today in Italy.
>

I disagree with your premise, of course. And, as you say, I am quite
unlikely to be around at 112. The problem with making pronouncements
about what was a mistake in terms of later developments is that later
changes may render what we think now obviously wrong. Worse, we often
down really know all the facts.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 8:29:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 02:20:16 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>My brother hates to read. I am sure he wouldn't like anything like that
>>as he NEVER reads anything that isn't factual (except the newspaper, of
>>course) Grin.
>
>
> BTGH might be the book that "proves the rule" with him. If
> nothing else, it makes heavy use of the epithet "Bowb", which I've
> heard in another ng is of Scottish origin. When I read the book
> many years ago I thought it was a word invented by Harrison.
>

Having read Harry Harrison for many years, I am as sure that he wouldn't
like it, even if one could convince a 74 year old ex-Marine to read such
a book, as I am that he wouldn't like Harry Potter.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 10:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:28:16 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I disagree with your premise, of course. And, as you say, I am quite
> unlikely to be around at 112.

You don't want to be a Disney popsicle, pop? :) 


> The problem with making pronouncements about what was a mistake
> in terms of later developments is that later changes may render what we
> think now obviously wrong. Worse, we often down really know all the facts.

True. But too many of the things we don't know now, and may never
know have been explained with "facts" already proven to be bogus.
Of course these deceivers are most likely to be believed most
fervently by those whose Pavlovian response to hearing a mention of
the name Al Gore is to grimace and think "LIAR!". In other words,
little thought is involved. Most people believe what they want to
believe and manage their lives to insure that they don't hear news
that is most unpleasant. And to them, despite what they might say,
what is most unpleasant isn't a stock market plunge, a natural
disaster or a war. What they'd find most unpleasant would be
hearing news or information at odds with their world view.
Fortunately for them that kind of news is rarely available. When it
is, they're more likely to be watching Fox than the really fair and
balanced outlets such as CSPAN, so they'd miss it anyway. :) 
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 10:20:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:29:59 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Having read Harry Harrison for many years, I am as sure that he wouldn't
> like it, even if one could convince a 74 year old ex-Marine to read such
> a book, as I am that he wouldn't like Harry Potter.

Too bad. More the Tom Clancy type, or just not a reader? I
recently got some of that category in a bargain bin (75% off). If
"Executive Orders" isn't any good, it's still large enough to use as
fuel to keep me warm next winter. 1,358 pages. Whew! First I'll
get in shape reading "Target Acquired", not such a bargain as it was
the same price but only 340 pages long. :) 
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:52:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:29:59 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Having read Harry Harrison for many years, I am as sure that he wouldn't
>>like it, even if one could convince a 74 year old ex-Marine to read such
>>a book, as I am that he wouldn't like Harry Potter.
>
>
> Too bad. More the Tom Clancy type, or just not a reader? I
> recently got some of that category in a bargain bin (75% off). If
> "Executive Orders" isn't any good, it's still large enough to use as
> fuel to keep me warm next winter. 1,358 pages. Whew! First I'll
> get in shape reading "Target Acquired", not such a bargain as it was
> the same price but only 340 pages long. :) 
>
He reads the newspaper, instructions for using things he buys, labels,
and maps. That's about it.

I really enjoyed Without Remorse better. I read Red Storm Rising and
Hunt for Red October, back to back. Won't do that again.
It's funny, but since I retired, I have not read a lot. Don't have
time. Go figure.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 1:39:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:52:18 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I really enjoyed Without Remorse better. I read Red Storm Rising and
> Hunt for Red October, back to back. Won't do that again.
> It's funny, but since I retired, I have not read a lot. Don't have
> time. Go figure.

It's been a long time since I've read any of his books, but HRO
was one of them. Audio books can be a good alternative. Even some
so called "children's books" can be worth a read or a listen. Roald
Dahl's "Matilda" is one of them. Even the movie adaptation (with
Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman) was very well done.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 5:14:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:52:18 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>I really enjoyed Without Remorse better. I read Red Storm Rising and
>>Hunt for Red October, back to back. Won't do that again.
>>It's funny, but since I retired, I have not read a lot. Don't have
>>time. Go figure.
>
>
> It's been a long time since I've read any of his books, but HRO
> was one of them. Audio books can be a good alternative. Even some
> so called "children's books" can be worth a read or a listen. Roald
> Dahl's "Matilda" is one of them. Even the movie adaptation (with
> Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman) was very well done.
>
I enjoyed that movie. But my favorite recent one was Ella Enchanted.
It was a good presentation of a person overcoming a problem with
creativity, and personal integrity. It was also a pleasant, and amusing
approach to telling a story. The cinematography was beautiful, and Ella
was charming, and attractive, and talented. I enjoy strong female
characters who don't feel they have to commit violence to get the job done.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 7:57:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 01:14:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> > Dahl's "Matilda" is one of them. Even the movie adaptation (with
> > Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman) was very well done.
> >
> I enjoyed that movie. But my favorite recent one was Ella Enchanted.
> It was a good presentation of a person overcoming a problem with
> creativity, and personal integrity. It was also a pleasant, and amusing
> approach to telling a story. The cinematography was beautiful, and Ella
> was charming, and attractive, and talented. I enjoy strong female
> characters who don't feel they have to commit violence to get the job done.

I'm unfamiliar with that one but I'll look for it if it's made it
to the Video rental. Although it's not for or about children, your
description fits a film I saw a couple of years ago, "Amelie",
starring Audrey Tatou. I think a small part of it inspired the
annoying "roving gnome" commercial I hear on the radio from time to
time. But I don't have any problems with films that have strong
female characters that occasionally commit violence to get the job
done. I never saw the cartoonish "Tank Girl", but there are or were
the movies and tv shows "Sheena", "2025", two I forget the name of,
one starring Jessica Alba, the other about a trio of "batgirls" in
Gotham City, the not very violent "She Spies", and the much more
violent "La Femme Nikita".
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 12:42:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 01:14:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>>Dahl's "Matilda" is one of them. Even the movie adaptation (with
>>>Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman) was very well done.
>>>
>>
>>I enjoyed that movie. But my favorite recent one was Ella Enchanted.
>>It was a good presentation of a person overcoming a problem with
>>creativity, and personal integrity. It was also a pleasant, and amusing
>>approach to telling a story. The cinematography was beautiful, and Ella
>>was charming, and attractive, and talented. I enjoy strong female
>>characters who don't feel they have to commit violence to get the job done.
>
>
> I'm unfamiliar with that one but I'll look for it if it's made it
> to the Video rental. Although it's not for or about children, your
> description fits a film I saw a couple of years ago, "Amelie",
> starring Audrey Tatou. I think a small part of it inspired the
> annoying "roving gnome" commercial I hear on the radio from time to
> time. But I don't have any problems with films that have strong
> female characters that occasionally commit violence to get the job
> done. I never saw the cartoonish "Tank Girl", but there are or were
> the movies and tv shows "Sheena", "2025", two I forget the name of,
> one starring Jessica Alba, the other about a trio of "batgirls" in
> Gotham City, the not very violent "She Spies", and the much more
> violent "La Femme Nikita".
>
Ella Enchanted is more like a live action version of the Shrek movies.
And Ella is MUCH better looking than Shrek!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 5:45:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 02:20:16 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>ASAAR wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:19:03 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>All military basic indoctrinates to some extent, no matter which branch
>>>>you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>NOT like the Marines, and so that you know, my older brother is one of
>>>the Chosin Few.
>>
>>
>> If you ever come across "Bill, The Galactic Hero" by Harry
>> Harrison you might want to give it a read. It's likely to be found
>> in the SF section of bookstores, but is basically a pretty amusing
>> story about Bill's military adventures. Hyperbole doesn't begin to
>> describe it. Your brother might like it too. If he doesn't, try
>> one of Harrison's earlier books, "DeathWorld" (part of a trilogy, I
>> think).
>>
>My brother hates to read.

Oh, yeah -- that's the kind of person I want defending my
rights -- a fully-functioning human being who has nothing left to
learn, now that Marine boot camp is over.

> I am sure he wouldn't like anything like that
>as he NEVER reads anything that isn't factual (except the newspaper, of
>course) Grin.
!