<DIV>Chas,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You wrote, " Second, making the three enlisted stand at attention is certainly disruptive, which is what you were seeking an example of, and I provided."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"You can't just ignore rank. Enlisted can frequently ignore rank<BR>within enlisted circles, if it is done carefully, with a smile,<BR>between respected peers or friends. It rarely happens between<BR>enlisted and commissioned. The consequence is almost always ruinous<BR>to a career, regardless of who was right or wrong."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It would appear then that Welborn could not be placed at fault for the crime of the men standing at attention when he entered the room if it is a long standing tradition in the military for enlisted to do this even in none formal settings. <BR><BR>"I wasn't there, Donovan. Speculation is useless. However, I would<BR>point out that Welborn would
not need to have OFFICIAL authority to<BR>deny Hall's promotion to make the threat effective."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You are doing a lot of speculation, Chas. You weren't there in the room, you didn't see the fliers. You did not hear what the other men were saying the room, you were not aware of what was said by either party. Yet, you summarily dismiss everything that Welborn has stated, and automatically believe everything the Hall says, simply based on the concept of their religion beliefs, and no other supporting evidence. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My thinking is that if Welborn wanted to stop the group, he would have prevented the group from meeting or distributing the fliers in the first place. He would not have gone there to confront the group and threaten them. That is not a logical approach to stopping a group, waiting until they are formed and united in mass. My suspicion is that Welborn went to see what it was about, and to warn these young men
that the military is not a forgiving place to be open about your beliefs on religion, sex, and politics, and that it could ruin their careers. I would suspect he is correct. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I have been a part of groups that have been discriminated against, and they don't wait until the group is formed and having a meeting. They strike long before then. If Welborn does not have a history of discriminating and trying to stop other atheist groups, I don't he just all of sudden decided to. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And again, I don't know where this is taking place. But if it is in Iraq, then I don't think this sort of meeting should be taking place at all. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Chasuk <chasuk@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Donovan
Arnold<BR><DONOVANJARNOLD2005@YAHOO.COM>wrote:<BR><BR>> Fair enough. However, is it possible that Welborn didn't know there was a<BR>> difference between Free Thinker and Freethinker, since, as you stated, there<BR>> was no definition of that intended term on the flier? Is it not reasonable<BR>> to think it was an open meeting designed to think and debate about the<BR>> existence or non-existence of God?<BR><BR>Granted, as one can presume anything.<BR><BR>> Which was it, were they standing at attention, or was he belittling them? I<BR>> don't think having soldiers standing at attention is belittling. If he was<BR>> making them shine his shoes, or doing push-ups, that might come across to me<BR>> as belittling. But if they were in standard protocol, I don't think it is<BR>> abusive.<BR><BR>It isn't standard protocol to have soldiers stand at attention during<BR>public meetings at which you are a guest. "Standard protocol" is to<BR>sit, and
listen, and participate. Abusing your rank by having your<BR>host stand at attention would, at the very least, be a grave<BR>personality flaw.<BR><BR>You are conflating things, and putting words in my mouth. First, I<BR>didn't use the words "belittle." Second, making the three enlisted<BR>stand at attention is certainly disruptive, which is what you were<BR>seeking an example of, and I provided.<BR><BR><BR>> What words did he use? Did he say, "If you ________ you will not get<BR>> _______." What did he say precisely. And what exactly was he reacting to?<BR>> What did Hall say at the meeting? Does Welborn have the authority to promote<BR>> and deny promotion to Hall? Do we know that Hall was not doing something<BR>> that would, in fact, prevent him from not unjustly getting a promotion?.<BR><BR>I wasn't there, Donovan. Speculation is useless. However, I would<BR>point out that Welborn would not need to have OFFICIAL authority to<BR>deny Hall's promotion to
make the threat effective.<BR><BR>> Do you have a copy of the flier?<BR><BR>No, I don't. I have posted THOUSANDS (no remote exaggeration) of<BR>fliers for various meetings during my decade in the USAF. I have been<BR>responsible for the generation of some of these fliers. They are<BR>vetted extensively before they are finally allowed. In ten years of<BR>service, stationed all over the world, I've never seen, or been made<BR>aware of, a flier or poster that contained anything inappropriate. No<BR>one wants to be the recipient of an unhappy phone call from a<BR>superior. The amounts of revisions and eyeballs involved in the<BR>distribution of even the most trivial flier or poster is mindboggling.<BR><BR>> So we don't know if Wellborn had due cause to be concerned. These men could<BR>> have been discussing ways to disrupt others in their religious pursuits,<BR>> correct?<BR><BR>Correct. However, no one is making this claim, as far as I am aware.<BR>If this claim
were tenable, the defense would have made it.<BR><BR>> If we don't know what was being said, or planned at the meeting, how can you<BR>> claim he was acting not in the interests of the public or the military? Why<BR>> didn't the other men just ignore him if rank was not a factor?<BR><BR>You can't just ignore rank. Enlisted can frequently ignore rank<BR>within enlisted circles, if it is done carefully, with a smile,<BR>between respected peers or friends. It rarely happens between<BR>enlisted and commissioned. The consequence is almost always ruinous<BR>to a career, regardless of who was right or wrong.<BR><BR>> Have you in fact met Welborn? or are you just guessing and speculating on<BR>> who Welborn is, and what he is like? Are you projecting experiences with<BR>> unfit officers you have encountered in your experiences without actually<BR>> learning what kind of person Welborn is as an individual?<BR><BR>I have never met Welborn. No, I am not
projecting. Welborn might be<BR>a saint. I am stating merely that Welborn's alleged behavior<BR>corresponds with the behavior of many officers in my experience, so it<BR>would not surprise me if the allegations were true.<BR><BR>The point of creating a new thread and carefully posing my scenario<BR>was not to prolong our engagement in empty hypothesizing. At its<BR>heart, I was trying to discover one thing. That "one thing" is this:<BR><BR>If Welborn was the self-righteous #$%$ that Hall's account depicts,<BR>would you still defend him? You like being contrary, and deliberate<BR>contrariness isn't something that appeals to me. Are you defending<BR>Welborn out of deliberate contrariness, or do you really find his<BR>actions defensible, if they are as Hall alleges?<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net
<BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Never miss a thing. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs"> Make Yahoo your homepage.</a>