Verbal Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 So verbal and sotonjoe you two seem to be the experts and not me who has been in the job for a decade. Why am I wrong? Why do women not serve on nuclear subs the world over... Please correct me with the facts. Thanks Xxx After all that's been said you're sending out xxx's? Yikes! If you're the expert, at least try and give us a reason anyone can reasonably argue with, rather than the casual mysogny you've dumped on us so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 After all that's been said you're sending out xxx's? Yikes! If you're the expert, at least try and give us a reason anyone can reasonably argue with, rather than the casual mysogny you've dumped on us so far. Just gave one brief reason But at the end of the day women do not serve on nuclear subs in our country in any country and no matter how much you laugh or take te Mick it will not change any time soon. So, all a bit irrelevant really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Martini Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 Perhaps an all female sub is the solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 Perhaps an all female sub is the solution? Solution to what? Did not realise we had a problem? In my time in the navy I have met about 4 female sailors who sai they would consider maybe serving on one for a few weeks. And plenty hve had a look round and 99.9% have said they would be happy NEVER to see one again, let along go to sea for a week on one. So many girls in the navy can't stand it when civvys try and stick up for them in this debate as it won't be those civvys who will have to serve on them in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 You tell em! Dulldays:D If teh Wiminz don't want to go down, then there you go. ps if they didnee use talc they might not mind going down!:smt047 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch of Maycomb Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 Joan of Arc was one of the greatest female leaders of all time, I would have her in the top section, as opposed to the bottom, purely based on her heroics at the battle of Orleans. Plus she never cried when she was burned - that's pretty tough in my opinion;) thanks for pointing that out to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 And now I know how Joan of Arc felt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 So many girls in the navy can't stand it when civvys try and stick up for them in this debate as it won't be those civvys who will have to serve on them in the future. No one's sticking up for 'the girls' as far as I can see. I'm just questioning your lazy, knee-jerk assumptions - aka your 'expertise'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 (edited) No one's sticking up for 'the girls' as far as I can see. I'm just questioning your lazy, knee-jerk assumptions - aka your 'expertise'. How is a decade of expertise "knee jerk"? Also how can it be "knee jerk" when women do NOT serve on nuc subs anywhere on the planet... Let's here your expertise then Edited 1 October, 2009 by Thedelldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 Matthew 13:13 dd, are you seriously saying that you would allow ME onto your sub, in preference to ANY woman whatsoever? Your protestations are akin to your non racism stance imho. I'm not racist but.... Some of my best friends are women etc etc etc. No offence mon ami, but I keep having a vision of you being played by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men., have you seen it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 Matthew 13:13 dd, are you seriously saying that you would allow ME onto your sub, in preference to ANY woman whatsoever? Your protestations are akin to your non racism stance imho. I'm not racist but.... Some of my best friends are women etc etc etc. No offence mon ami, but I keep having a vision of you being played by Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men., have you seen it? The medical issues aside. The sleeping and living arrangements alone would mean I would prefer it with no women. As the introduction of women wouldake a very testing time at sea with the living and sleeping arrangements even harder. That is not me being racist or sexist. If anyone here (I know there are one or two) who has been on a uk sub will know what I am on about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 What about gay men on the subs then, surley that would raise 'concerns' re bedsahiro=ing, bathing etc. the radiation isssue is one that sub-mariners obviously accept when going down, surely the same could apply to a woman? Do you really not want the person alongside you to be appointed on the basis of them being the best man for the job dd? (no pun intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 1 October, 2009 Share Posted 1 October, 2009 How is a decade of expertise "knee jerk"? Also how can it be "knee jerk" when women do NOT serve on nuc subs anywhere on the planet... Let's here your expertise then I'm judging your expertise solely by your comments on here. Doesn't amount to much, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Would DullDays allow British Muslims to serve on submarines? How would he react to tripping over a prayer mat as he fumbled his way towards his little bunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Would DullDays allow British Muslims to serve on submarines? How would he react to tripping over a prayer mat as he fumbled his way towards his little bunk? I know of a couple of Muslims on subs and they are great lads Why are you suggesting that I am racist? Is it becaus you have no other point to make Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 I'm judging your expertise solely by your comments on here. Doesn't amount to much, does it? so. My expertise don't amount to much despite me being in the job and living the life for a decade. If you can say that. I wi ask again. Tell me about your expertise and tell me with facts how I am wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 so. My expertise don't amount to much despite me being in the job and living the life for a decade. If you can say that. I wi ask again. Tell me about your expertise and tell me with facts how I am wrong Just a question. Can you read? Once again, I judge your expertise by your comments on here, which are in my opinion those of a lazy default to misogyny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 So a submariner, with a decade of service, explains the reasons why women don't serve on ANY subs across the world and a few idiots can't accept that he just might be right? Delldays may not be the sharpest tool in the box but I think it's fair to assume that he knows a damn sight more about the submarine service than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 So a submariner, with a decade of service, explains the reasons why women don't serve on ANY subs across the world and a few idiots can't accept that he just might be right? Delldays may not be the sharpest tool in the box but I think it's fair to assume that he knows a damn sight more about the submarine service than we do. Ah, another non-reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.comsaint Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 I know of a couple of Muslims on subs and they are great lads Why are you suggesting that I am racist? Is it becaus you have no other point to make I'd give up if I were you DD. A handful of posters on this thread have already proved they know sweet f*ck-all about life on a sub & would be best suited to sticking with the little plastic toy one they have in the bathtub each night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Brilliant! Formation knee-jerking from all the usual suspects from the EDL thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Brilliant! Formation knee-jerking from all the usual suspects from the EDL thread. Where as you have just delivered your usual unevidenced rubbish. Delldays may be a bit slow but he's supported his argument with facts, you just rant rather childishly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Ah, another non-reader. Verbal [diarrhea], which bit of DD's FACT based post did you miss? And why, if you're such an expert on the issue have you not offered a counter argument against what DD states as FACT? I've highlighted the relevant bits for you - I hope you can see them why should I? The 2 resident experts will tell me I am wrong without having the first clue what they are on about. But since you aske ponty.. In a nutshell. When you serve on board nuclear powered subs you are living in close proximity to a nuclear reactor for weeks/months on end. Not like if you worked in a nuc power plant where you go home and away from said reactor when you finish work. To that end you get subjected to doses of nuclear radiation as well a other potentionally harmfull atmospheric elements. It is a scientiic fact (which all nations with nuc subs follow) that the dosage received will potentionally cause more harm to the female internal organs than those of male. It is a fact that the constant dosage received over a long period of time could very well caus harm to a womens reproductive organs. And that is a risk that no nation is ready to take. There us more to it but that is one reason with regards to the nuclear element o the job. There are plenty of others. Add that to the sleeping and living arrangements on what is a very cramped operational environment. Going to sea and conducting high end operations in sensitive waters on a sub is unique and can't be compared to anything else. I could go on but on my iPhone so will leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 As an "outsider" reading all the posts I'm shocked at the childishness of people on here mocking the informed facts and opinions given by a member of our armed forces who has spent prolonged periods at sea in Sumbarines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 As an "outsider" reading all the posts I'm shocked at the childishness of people on here mocking the informed facts and opinions given by a member of our armed forces who has spent prolonged periods at sea in Sumbarines. Have to agree with this post, except of course, the shocked bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Cap Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 I disagree with delldays on most things, but he has a point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 hmmm.... I can't help thinking the point he says he's now making wasn't the one he was making from the outset. It smacks of tactical withdrawal to me. The way the discussion quickly shifted from submarines to nuclear submarines just goes to show that this wasn't always about radiation doing damage to female organs. He is a sexist (and a racist given by the nasty implications being made on the EDL thread) and he's hiding behind the only shreds of sense he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 hmmm.... I can't help thinking the point he says he's now making wasn't the one he was making from the outset. It smacks of tactical withdrawal to me. The way the discussion quickly shifted from submarines to nuclear submarines just goes to show that this wasn't always about radiation doing damage to female organs. He is a sexist (and a racist given by the nasty implications being made on the EDL thread) and he's hiding behind the only shreds of sense he has. we dont have any other type of submarine other than nuclear submarines... keep clutching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 we dont have any other type of submarine other than nuclear submarines... keep clutching Quality ownage there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Well, it does look like there's been a real knuckle-draggers' party going on while I've been away. So presumably then the story that started this thread is pure fiction. Just to remind you... 'WASHINGTON - American women may serve aboard submarines of the US Navy, an official said here Friday. “This is something the CNO (chief of naval operations) and I have been working on since I came into office,” US Navy secretary Ray Mabus said in a statement. “We are moving out aggressively on this. I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines,” he said. Women making up about 15 percent of the US Navy’s officers and sailors, however, they are not assigned to serve in the Navy SEAL special forces units.' So that gives an interesting twist on delldays' claim that letting women onto nuclear subs 'is a risk that no nation is ready to take.' The US not count as a 'nation' then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Well, it does look like there's been a real knuckle-draggers' party going on while I've been away. So presumably then the story that started this thread is pure fiction. Just to remind you... 'WASHINGTON - American women may serve aboard submarines of the US Navy, an official said here Friday. “This is something the CNO (chief of naval operations) and I have been working on since I came into office,” US Navy secretary Ray Mabus said in a statement. “We are moving out aggressively on this. I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines,” he said. Women making up about 15 percent of the US Navy’s officers and sailors, however, they are not assigned to serve in the Navy SEAL special forces units.' So that gives an interesting twist on delldays' claim that letting women onto nuclear subs 'is a risk that no nation is ready to take.' The US not count as a 'nation' then? ...the US are constantly building submarines..I have been "down" their newest one - the USS New Hampshire and that is like a space ship...guess what, no women.. new technology and new advances in radiation shielding are always being introduced...I have never said that ONE DAY women wont serve..just right NOW, they dont and WILL not in the near future... out of the nations with nuclear subs, the US Navy will PROBABLY be the first to introduce women...for a couple of reasons.. a) they are constantly building new classes of submarines, new designs, new ideas... b) with constant new ideas they are able to DESIGN a submarine with future NEW technology and SHIEDLING within them... anything to do with nuclear power in a military (or any) involvement, costs a massive amount of money...unless you are happy in this day and age that we spend a ridiculous amount of money to not only scrap the submarines we have...scrap the ASTUTE class in build, buy into massive research in radiation shielding and build a new fleet of submarines to enable gender equality..??? at the moment, women do NOT serve on nuclear subs...no matter what a study here, in France or the USA will change that right now... I may be wrong and next week a US submarine will sail from Kings Bay with women serving on it....hold on, no it wont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 "The Navy was under enormous pressure a decade ago from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services to open the submarine community to women. The committee at the time was an influential 34-member advisory group to the secretary of defense. In 1999, the Navy allowed several members of this group aboard different classes of submarines while under way. For a few days they lived aboard. But they returned to shore unconvinced that the gender ban was appropriate. That fall, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services unanimously recommended that the Navy secretary and the CNO "commit to the integration of women in the submarine community and develop an implementation plan." http://www.islandpacket.com/lowcountrylife/story/985133.html Actually seems an old story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 "The Navy was under enormous pressure a decade ago from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services to open the submarine community to women. The committee at the time was an influential 34-member advisory group to the secretary of defense. In 1999, the Navy allowed several members of this group aboard different classes of submarines while under way. For a few days they lived aboard. But they returned to shore unconvinced that the gender ban was appropriate. That fall, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services unanimously recommended that the Navy secretary and the CNO "commit to the integration of women in the submarine community and develop an implementation plan." http://www.islandpacket.com/lowcountrylife/story/985133.html Actually seems an old story. so, 10 years on and.............................someone (or a commitee) have given a statement they want to work towards women on nuclear submarines... hmmmmmmmmmm I wonder why...maybe for the brief reasons I have given in this thread...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Nope. None of the actual decision-makers on this in the US have ever mentioned the reason you've given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Nope. None of the actual decision-makers on this in the US have ever mentioned the reason you've given. oh...so you have the memos of the actual 4-star Admirals who are Decision makers from COMSUBGRU 8 ATLANTIC by chance.. and not a press release..? if so, give us a look.. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 It's not a press release though, is it. It's a statement made in Congress. Where people take, you know...decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 It's not a press release though, is it. It's a statement made in Congress. Where people take, you know...decisions. yes..and the same was released here...last year.. still, not going to happen in the near or even medium future.. people in power tell us a lot of things that will generally NOT happen any time soon... then again, like I said. next week/next month/next year a woman could sail on operations from Kings Bay/Devonport/Faslane on a US/UK nuclear submarine.....(feel free to delete as applicable).. erm, no they wont....I might just have an idea what I am on about...y'know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 I'm sure the US crews tried their hardest to convince the deicison-makers ten years ago. If they did, they failed, clearly. And the only reason the issue was dropped was because the king of all knuckle draggers, George W, became US president and hauled in his mates to kick the Pentagon back to the fifties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 I'm sure the US crews tried their hardest to convince the deicison-makers ten years ago. If they did, they failed, ceraly. And the only reason the issue was dropped was because the king of all knuckle draggers, became US president and hauled in his mates to kick the Pentagon back to the fifties. well..now barack obama is president...we should expect things to change soon...what do you reckon..?........ so what else are you saying...congress (where you mentioned above) are dictated to by submarine crews..? I thought, congress were the decision makers..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Verbal, you get shown up on a regualr basis due to you not being as bright as you hope you are. Give it up before you make yourself look an even bigger ***t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Verbal, you get shown up on a regualr basis due to you not being as bright as you hope you are. Give it up before you make yourself look an even bigger ***t. just seems a strage subject to keep going on about..and (in me) an odd person to try an "out do"..... strange thing, they were going on about as if I have no idea what I am on about on the subject and even suggested that a decade of living the life in the job brought out a "knee-jerk" opinion.. I post facts and experience from the "real world" and they have no facts and a press release... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 2 October, 2009 Share Posted 2 October, 2009 Rarely do I come down on the side TDD, and having once met a load of submariners in the FI's, I cannot claim to envy thier job at all. However, I think the points that he is making are far from sexist - more realist if truth be known. He is not doubting any womans ability to actually conduct the job role in hand, but is looking at the practicalities of filling the role. I too have experienced this dilema. While I was serving in Bosnia a female (TA Volunteer) was posted to my unit and she insisted that she wanted to serve on one of the remote detachments - so I posted her to one. After less than a week she declared to me that she was in fact 2 months pregnant and wanted to return to Banja Luka (Metal Factory). My initial take on this is that pregnancy is not an illness and many women work throughout it - therefore I told her that I would look at replacing her, but that it might take two to three weeks. One day later, I was contacted by the Medical Officer and told that I would remove her from the hilltop site within 24 hours. So through her own doing she got her own way and mucked others about at the same time. I have also had a case of a muslim soldier who, because he was disallusioned with the system, played it for all he was worth. He demanded his own room because he needed to pray in peace and he also finished work at 3 oclock on certain days because he had to pray. Again - this causes disruption and annoyance to other soldiers - but we had to deal with it. As for TDD's point about woman in Specialist Forces - there are some that do such jobs, but again the majority are men and it's likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. So you see - it's not a case of they cannot do the job - it's more a case of integrating them into what historically is a male orientated environment. Nothing sexist there at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 3 October, 2009 Share Posted 3 October, 2009 You hope they bin one bomber and attack sub other than that already programmed... As for women on our subs... Can imagine a week in to a highly secret recon patrol in highly sensitive waters and a women turned round and said she was pregnant and/or had complications.. Never going to happen with any of our subs in service, in build or planned for build. Even if I did my full time in the submarine service I will never see it... And as I have said. THANK FUK This was DulllDays' first 'detailed' post about what is wrong with putting women on submarines. This is the first potentially sexist claim he makes. There is nothing about radiation hurting women's 'bits' at this stage. It is all about women being risky becuase they may get pregnant and have to be sent home. I'm guessing medical situations don't arise in which male officers have to be sent home right? As I said, he shifts onto the nuclear argument later in an attempt to try and lessen the impact of some of the potentially sexist ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2009 Share Posted 3 October, 2009 This was DulllDays' first 'detailed' post about what is wrong with putting women on submarines. This is the first potentially sexist claim he makes. There is nothing about radiation hurting women's 'bits' at this stage. It is all about women being risky becuase they may get pregnant and have to be sent home. I'm guessing medical situations don't arise in which male officers have to be sent home right? As I said, he shifts onto the nuclear argument later in an attempt to try and lessen the impact of some of the potentially sexist ramblings. keep digging... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 3 October, 2009 Share Posted 3 October, 2009 This was DulllDays' first 'detailed' post about what is wrong with putting women on submarines. This is the first potentially sexist claim he makes. There is nothing about radiation hurting women's 'bits' at this stage. It is all about women being risky becuase they may get pregnant and have to be sent home. I'm guessing medical situations don't arise in which male officers have to be sent home right? As I said, he shifts onto the nuclear argument later in an attempt to try and lessen the impact of some of the potentially sexist ramblings. So, would you not class being pregnant on a NUCLEAR submarine being exposed to NUCLEAR radiation a bit of a complication - for both the mother and baby? Perhaps Delldays isn't the most eloquent of posters sometimes, but you'd really need to be as stupid as Verbal not to understand what his point was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2009 Share Posted 3 October, 2009 (edited) So, would you not class being pregnant on a NUCLEAR submarine being exposed to NUCLEAR radiation a bit of a complication - for both the mother and baby? . thanks, was about to post something similar...im my stupidity, I assumed out two resident expert knew about the matter in hand and the fact that the UK only have fleet of nuclear powered subs...hence why I said "complications".... it seems sometime after the post sotonjoe has pointed out that I was wrong, when I noticed this one.. hmmm.... I can't help thinking the point he says he's now making wasn't the one he was making from the outset. It smacks of tactical withdrawal to me. The way the discussion quickly shifted from submarines to nuclear submarines just goes to show that this wasn't always about radiation doing damage to female organs. He is a sexist (and a racist given by the nasty implications being made on the EDL thread) and he's hiding behind the only shreds of sense he has. he has now gone from debating the issues (as I am right) to just trying to prove I am a sexist/racist.. Edited 3 October, 2009 by Thedelldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 3 October, 2009 Share Posted 3 October, 2009 You hope they bin one bomber and attack sub other than that already programmed... As for women on our subs... Can imagine a week in to a highly secret recon patrol in highly sensitive waters and a women turned round and said she was pregnant and/or had complications.. Never going to happen with any of our subs in service, in build or planned for build. Even if I did my full time in the submarine service I will never see it... And as I have said. THANK FUK And men don't have health issues too? I work in a police station full of women who I suspect have sex and could get pregnant, should they not be allowed to do the job either? No you are right, they should be at home ironing our shirts and hoovering the carpets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2009 Share Posted 3 October, 2009 And men don't have health issues too? I work in a police station full of women who I suspect have sex and could get pregnant, should they not be allowed to do the job either? No you are right, they should be at home ironing our shirts and hoovering the carpets. of course men have health issues...have you read the thread at all...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 3 October, 2009 Share Posted 3 October, 2009 And men don't have health issues too? I work in a police station full of women who I suspect have sex and could get pregnant, should they not be allowed to do the job either? No you are right, they should be at home ironing our shirts and hoovering the carpets.[/quote What Station do you work in, Chynobol? How longs your shift, 3 months on, 3 off? If your answer is yes to the above then what's your staff/ beds/ toilets/ shower facilities ratio? Seriously, again, as an outider looking in I dont care what DellDays may or may not have said on other threads, he has completely and utterly swatted away the (seemingly intentially) provacative accusations from sad (very sad actually) people who (by the looks of things) havn't served this country in any shape or form, have no experience in the subject matter and rely on lazy quotes gained from 3 minutes of looking on Google. May I just place on record my admiration for our armed forces here and I must doff my cap to DD for his restraint in the face of childish provocation from people who, whilst probably doing incredibly mundane jobs with little social standing, seek gratification in calling one of our country's defenders a liar and a fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 3 October, 2009 Share Posted 3 October, 2009 No you are right, they should be at home ironing our shirts and hoovering the carpets. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now