|
Grex > Coop13 > #308: Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting, January 16, 2006 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 59 responses total. |
naftee
|
|
response 25 of 59:
| 
Jan 30 03:32 UTC 2006 |
in the stumps ?
digging your grape ?
whoa.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 59:
|
Jan 30 05:35 UTC 2006 |
re #24
Its possible he took a month off after boot camp and blew back up like a
Macy's balloon. I knew this guy who did it by eating Domino's pizza 3 or 4
times a day.
|
mary
|
|
response 27 of 59:
|
Jan 30 11:31 UTC 2006 |
Way to get out of a bad deal. Brilliant. Bring on the chocolate!
Might have saved his life.
|
tsty
|
|
response 28 of 59:
|
Jan 30 15:17 UTC 2006 |
thankxx but i'll risk being skinny instead - better odds.
|
tod
|
|
response 29 of 59:
|
Jan 30 18:19 UTC 2006 |
Cheaper too
|
cross
|
|
response 30 of 59:
|
Jan 31 00:40 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #27; Not exactly. First of all, that kind of discharge is
other than honorable (goose-fat was mistaken that it was an honorable).
Second, he didn't get kicked out, he got kicked to the grunts. Last
I heard, he was manning a .50 cal on top of an LAV in Iraq. As far as
I know, none of his peers from the school he flunked out of have been
deployed (though at least one guy volunteered). So, neither brilliant,
nor a way to get out of a bad deal. Just a way to make it worse on
himself.
|
mary
|
|
response 31 of 59:
|
Jan 31 02:34 UTC 2006 |
He needed to get fatter.
|
scholar
|
|
response 32 of 59:
|
Jan 31 02:38 UTC 2006 |
i'm too fat for my own good, but i walked for an hour or so today, and i'm
sure that burned several hundred calories!
|
nharmon
|
|
response 33 of 59:
|
Jan 31 03:45 UTC 2006 |
Hey Dan, can't you be brought up on charges for doing things that render
you unfit for duty? Like, say, shooting yourself in the foot. What would
it have taken for this guy to see punishment like that?
|
cross
|
|
response 34 of 59:
|
Jan 31 16:21 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #31; No, he just needed to have not enlisted. It's not like
anyone forced him, nor like he got drafted.
Regarding #33; Yes, that can happen. I've seen people get disciplined for
having really bad sunburns. The old joke used to be that they'd get slapped
with "Destruction of Government Property" charges (them being the property).
However, you've got to be a real idiot for that. I suspect that, had it
actually gotten to the point where they were going to kick him out, he would
have gotten slapped with some kind of charge. There are people who just
legitimately can't lose the weight, because they've got some kind of glandular
thing or something like that. Those people they won't OTH or screw with their
lives. This kid wasn't one of them.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 59:
|
Jan 31 18:44 UTC 2006 |
Actually, the destruction of government property was a valid charge at one
time. Here's my bright shining example:
You would become exempt from certain NSA/TS clearances if you had any
distinguishing features on your person such as visible tattoos. The Corps
might train someone for 18 months only to have them lose their required
clearance for that MOS by doing something stupid like tattooing their forearm.
The Old Man up at the White Elephant would burn your ass for wasting his
budget on you. That went same for things like criminal charges which would
ruin your clearance. They'd find a way to make you pay for it like bust you
down, take your pay, and throw you into something like the 30 second life
expectancy type MOS's where you walk around with a big f'in antenna sticking
up to make you an easy target. Worse, they might make you part of the
masturbation patrol (MP) battalion where you'd be sentenced to saluting
officer's vehicles at the gate all day.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 36 of 59:
|
Jan 31 18:50 UTC 2006 |
What does a tattoo have to do with being trusted with top secrets?
|
tod
|
|
response 37 of 59:
|
Jan 31 18:53 UTC 2006 |
re #36
Ask Aldrich Ames's victims.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 38 of 59:
|
Jan 31 18:56 UTC 2006 |
Woah! I studied that guy when I did a research report on polygraph for
one of my criminology classes. I don't remember anything about tattoos.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 59:
|
Jan 31 19:32 UTC 2006 |
I was referring more to the grandiosity, selfish act, and impulsiveness of
tattoos. Those are red flags with a polygraph or background check. The fact
they didn't kick Ames to the curb for his drunken and boisterous personality
was even more suspect. He was a squiggly lil nerd who basically handed over
the whole Soviet list of assets thinking he could con the KGB except they
picked up on those traits I mentioned and got him to "brag".
You don't want forearm tattoo guys handling your sensitive data. That's the
weird thing about the Sean Connery James Bond is his forearm tattoo but then
again he was always about counter insurgency (assassinations) rather than data
collection.
Am I biased? Yea, dude. And you with the keys on your pants, you're just as
bad.
|
cross
|
|
response 40 of 59:
|
Jan 31 21:11 UTC 2006 |
Regarding #36; Tattoos are also distinguishing marks, that make it easier
to be identified. ``Well, he was medium build, medium height, had brown
hair and grey eyes, and oh yeah, had a tattoo of Iwo Jima on his left
forearm!!'' Kinda makes it hard to be incognito.
|
tod
|
|
response 41 of 59:
|
Jan 31 21:49 UTC 2006 |
Yea, they like you to only have the same shoes when you swap your disguises.
8D
|
naftee
|
|
response 42 of 59:
|
Feb 1 02:41 UTC 2006 |
whoa.
we should have a marine corps conference, FWed up by tod and cross.
|
other
|
|
response 43 of 59:
|
Feb 1 02:55 UTC 2006 |
...keys on your pants...?
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 59:
|
Feb 1 05:12 UTC 2006 |
Keys hanging off your pants = Cliff Clavin
|
richard
|
|
response 45 of 59:
|
Feb 1 16:35 UTC 2006 |
re #0 what good does it do to place people on a "restricted email" list when
all they'll do is run newuser and get a new unrestricted login?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 46 of 59:
|
Feb 1 23:23 UTC 2006 |
Re #45: From the text of #0, it's clear that the list is a whitelist (you have
to do something to be able to send email), not a blacklist (a list of users who
can't).
|
richard
|
|
response 47 of 59:
|
Feb 2 15:20 UTC 2006 |
Here's one idea. Restrict email for the first thirty days of a login's life.
Grex can make it so all new logins must be thirty days old before email access
is activated. This might prevent grex from being used as an email address
mill.
|
janc
|
|
response 48 of 59:
|
Feb 16 18:16 UTC 2006 |
I notice that the next board meeting is scheduled for Thursday February
23 at 7pm.
That isn't actually a very good date for me. I could do it, but I'd
have to arrange a baby sitter. For the next month or two, I won't be
free on Tuesday or Thursday nights until about 9pm.
Would it be possible to reschedule it?
|
keesan
|
|
response 49 of 59:
|
Feb 16 18:19 UTC 2006 |
Are your kids old enough to sit quietly through a meeting?
|