• The rules for The Exchange can be found here. Please read and follow them. Stop using Paypal Friends & Family and follow our best practices to prevent getting ripped off or having a bad deal.

a bit of a strider upset... :(

Status
Not open for further replies.
tirod3 said:
Adult men and women in the service soon learn not to do that,.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they have simply forgotten what civility is...

Thankfully, I know that this is not true. I know many service men and women that belie your post in the best way possible. Actually, I think your post is an insult to the vast majority of enlisted men and women.

You don't have to be arrogant and rude in order to be tough or "bad-ass", and in this thread from the crypt M. Strider has shown himself both of the former and non of the latter.
 
Boats said:
Problem is, he has claimed such, or at the very least, intimated that such was the case.
Click to expand...
Point taken. But that has no impact on what I observed. Claiming combat status is another thing entirely.

Not if one also claimed, in this very forum, the status of combat veteran.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. Whether he falsely claimed combat status on not, lack of deployment is not inconsistent with membership in a military unit. I did not have knowledge that he, Strider, claimed combat status for himself.

My limited understanding of the issue is that Rangers have tabs. The 2/75 is the organizational "home" of the Rangers, but certainly not all of its personnel are Rangers, no more so than the case of every Sailor in the NAVSPECWAR command also being all SeALS.
Click to expand...
Again, without questioning the validity of your understanding, that is another topic. I suspect the Rangers themselves would have some knowledge about the issue you raise as to Strider claiming to have been a Ranger. Do they not have a site to out posers?

"Reduction in rank" is an administrative or judicial punishment, not a matter of course. At the end of my hitch, I was an E-5 and a civilian in the IRR. Had I been called up, I was an E-5 once again. The intimation of Strider's record is that at some point he was busted to private prior to discharge. Fortunately for him, he couldn't have fallen far in rank within two years or less.
Click to expand...
Again, without disputing the inference that you draw, reduction in rank was not expressly addressed in the count order or in my statement. You seem to have additional information. Was this in connection with his discharge or for some prior incident. Anything we can read?

Barred from re-enlistment denotes that though one may possess an HONORABLE discharge, one is also an RE-3 or RE-4. RE-3s can usually re-enlist with a waiver, RE-4s are generally disciplinary cases and not waiverable short of an Act of God. Barred from re-enlistment unless otherwise demonstrated, says to me "RE-4."
Click to expand...
This may be 100% correct, but was not addresed by the court order that Keith quoted. The words are simply not in Keith's quotation.

Look, I have imperfect knowledge. I was only addressing Keith's point about possible inconsitency between the court's language and what I understood Strider claims about his past. You seem to know more about his claims and about his military record. I can hardly dispute something about which I have no information, and I have no desire or motive to do so.
 
OK, the Rangers don't consider Ranger school grads "Rangers" until they have been in combat.
 
OK people for those who don't know or get this, it starts with Basic training, MOS school, airborne school, then RIP ( Ranger indoctrination program) for E-4 or less, E-5 or more go ROP, upon graduation of this program, you are then assigned to the regiment, given the scroll and wear the Ranger Tan beret, Mick was 2/75, Second Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. You cannot be an NCO or an officer without the Tab and completion of Ranger school, but you can pass Ranger school(the Tab) and not be" Ranger Qualified" in the case of Special Forces who just do the training. " The Tab is a school, the Scroll is a way of life" is the official position of the US Army Rangers, once in the regiment you are Ranger.
 
Bohica2u said:
OK, the Rangers don't consider Ranger school grads "Rangers" until they have been in combat.
Click to expand...
The 75th Ranger Rgt. seems to believe that one is a member of that unit when merely "scrolled," that is, before completing Ranger School and becoming "tabbed." Perhaps they are incorrect. Then again, you could give us the source of your staement that one is not a Ranger until one has seen combat. Link?
 
what does that mean please .. someone help all of this is leaving a bad taste .. please answer ... court case lies or truth

thanks

ug
 
T. Linton,

I will produce the information you have requested. :) It is not available by link, but I will give excerpts, author and title of the book. This book is about the history of the Rangers (Rodger's Rangers) to present day.

Back to my comment: Ranger combat vets do not consider "Rangers" Rangers; scrolled, tabbed, or bookmarked. This is a fact of life in the military between those who have been there, to the "new guys" who want to be there. Offhand, I think the term to use is Baptised by fire. This book specifically goes into this. A tan beret does not make someone a Ranger, its deeper than that...............

Lets just say that there are Rangers, past and present, who are cringing when they hear of some poser wannabe claiming to be one of them.
 
HoB said:
Or maybe they have simply forgotten what civility is...

Thankfully, I know that this is not true. I know many service men and women that belie your post in the best way possible. Actually, I think your post is an insult to the vast majority of enlisted men and women.

You don't have to be arrogant and rude in order to be tough or "bad-ass", and in this thread from the crypt M. Strider has shown himself both of the former and non of the latter.
Click to expand...


That is a matter of interpretation that many have questioned. I make no defense of it, except to say civility is often a tone and manner of speaking that cannot be adequately conveyed by direct transcription of the spoken word.

In junior high, one of my classmates read the lunch menu. She did in such tones as to cause those around to leap to extreme flights of fancy . . .

So it's not what was printed, it's how it's said - something that can't be heard in the printed word, and what writer's struggle to communicate when typing the great American novel, or a state of the union address. Forumites understand the difficulty, and some pride themselves in their ability with the keyboard - but that doesn't automatically mean I'd follow them onto the battlefield.

In fact, I came to distrust the singular qualification of good grammar if no leadership, self sacrifice, and competence were also exhibited. This was sometimes communicated in the familiar soldier's lexicon, but I rarely see it printed.

"Jeez, you dumazz, you screwed the pooch on that one! When we did the rehearsal, you dodged left, and now you've been laying there 2 hours gunned down by your own MG, waiting for the EER! Like you needed the rest - you got two hours yesterday! Get up, stupid, and tell us why you dodged right, then we'll hear your views on the sniper thing." (Seriously redacted for public consumption.)

And I laughed all the way through it. Leaders use language like that when trust is established, and I'd serve with him again. I respectfully reserve my own estimate of Mick to when I might ever meet him, but reading between the lines, I have no real reason to see why the blind hatred.
 
Bohica2u said:
T. Linton,

I will produce the information you have requested. :) It is not available by link, but I will give excerpts, author and title of the book. This book is about the history of the Rangers (Rodger's Rangers) to present day.

Back to my comment: Ranger combat vets do not consider "Rangers" Rangers; scrolled, tabbed, or bookmarked. This is a fact of life in the military between those who have been there, to the "new guys" who want to be there. Offhand, I think the term to use is Baptised by fire. This book specifically goes into this. A tan beret does not make someone a Ranger, its deeper than that...............

Lets just say that there are Rangers, past and present, who are cringing when they hear of some poser wannabe claiming to be one of them.
Click to expand...
Then, by this standard, a scrolled, tabbed, and deployed Ranger is a "poser" if he has not seen combat? What if he is killed on the war to the theater of combat? Not a "real" "Ranger"?

Requiring compliance with unwritten rules is only a tad less unreasonable than requiring the same as to unspoken rules.

Lets see if the person in question is invited to the next "Best Ranger" competition. (Or maybe those who have invited him repeatedly in the past are "poser" enablers. Hell, maybe they'll invite "GhostSix.")

Whatever his sins, and they seem to be real and serious ones, and however over-the-top the salty lingo and some of the fan expressions of loyalty, a man should not be subjected to unfair criticism. That applies to LT as well -- I guess.
 
Uh, I DID NOT say that Ranger grads were posers.......................

Title: Shadow Warriors, A History of the US Army Rangers

Author: Mir Bahmanyar

Date: 2005
 
Hmmmm...
Just checking my posts so that I have not left myself open to legal action from Badlands Moderators
 
SkinnyDale said:
OK people for those who don't know or get this, it starts with Basic training, MOS school, airborne school, then RIP ( Ranger indoctrination program) for E-4 or less, E-5 or more go ROP, upon graduation of this program, you are then assigned to the regiment, given the scroll and wear the Ranger Tan beret, Mick was 2/75, Second Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. You cannot be an NCO or an officer without the Tab and completion of Ranger school, but you can pass Ranger school(the Tab) and not be" Ranger Qualified" in the case of Special Forces who just do the training. " The Tab is a school, the Scroll is a way of life" is the official position of the US Army Rangers, once in the regiment you are Ranger.
Click to expand...

In the mid 90s non-tabbed E5 went to RIP. The comment about SF is way off base. If a SF guy goes to Ranger School he will wear a Tab. From most that I know they went to Ranger School before they went SF. Once you are in SF its not such a big deal.
 
Bohica2u said:
T. Linton,

I will produce the information you have requested. :) It is not available by link, but I will give excerpts, author and title of the book. This book is about the history of the Rangers (Rodger's Rangers) to present day.

Back to my comment: Ranger combat vets do not consider "Rangers" Rangers; scrolled, tabbed, or bookmarked. This is a fact of life in the military between those who have been there, to the "new guys" who want to be there. Offhand, I think the term to use is Baptised by fire. This book specifically goes into this. A tan beret does not make someone a Ranger, its deeper than that...............

Lets just say that there are Rangers, past and present, who are cringing when they hear of some poser wannabe claiming to be one of them.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of BS

And the term is not “bookmarked” its "book ends" which refers to having a combat patch on your right shoulder.
 
Horned Toad said:
In the mid 90s non-tabbed E5 went to RIP. The comment about SF is way off base. If a SF guy goes to Ranger School he will wear a Tab. From most that I know they went to Ranger School before they went SF. Once you are in SF its not such a big deal.
Click to expand...

Correct. While having the tower of power is visually impressive (it was even more so when it could be on both shoulders), SF is > than Ranger. Nobody cares if an SF guy doesn't have a Ranger tab.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top